The Values of the Democratic Party vs. the Republican Party

A couple clarifications for the readers... My opponent and I agreed (via text) that the first round he will just post "I accept the debate" as I didn't make any statements in that round and it was used as an invite to introduce the topic. With that said my opponent has agreed not to use 1 of the 3 rounds just like I didn't use the first round, in order to keep it equal and fair. We also have agreed to post our arguments only after our first posts, so we can both respond to the opponent's argument statements, so it doesn't matter who posts first or second. I thank my opponent for that. Now let's begin :). Is it possible to change someone's opinion on a topic that defines who they are? The likely answer to this question later" In my argument I am targeting the party not Trump alone, because I believe parties are more important and influential than individuals" Parties can exist without individuals, but individuals can't exist without a party in a country with a voting system. Also parties have the ability to change people's minds, believes and values. This is not opinion this is a fact. In a fascist country you "grow" fascists, in a democratic country you "grow" democrats, in a communist country you "grow" communists. And they all have been "educated", aka brain washed to fallow the system. The average westerner has been thought/programmed to think that communist countries are evil. This originates from the cold war. The ideology has been turned into propaganda... "All people in such a country are brain washed by their government, otherwise they would revolt". But the reality is that this is a real example of the power of an ideology and that in order for an ideology (democracy, communism, fascism) to thrive it must put all other alternatives down. Why else would you chose it, if another one is better? At least that's what history teaches us" Believe it or not Chinese people are just as happy with the so called tyrannical government they have. Because they are brain washed? Or because we are brain washed to think otherwise? This is a debate on its own indeed. But it does go to show that everyone has a different perception based on their experience and the information they have been given/fed. For that reason, I don't believe that this debate will change anyone's opinion no matter how convincing I am or my opponent is. This is the real sad part that I am starting to realize. We are all victims of our own believes and of our own ideologies. We tend to seek information that confirms those believes and they only get reinforced, not changed" Never the less, here is my attempt :)" I will begin with 3 topics" Financial responsibility, prosperity and common wealth When it comes prosperity, growth, productivity and wealth, the republican run states are scraping the bottom. To put things in clear perspective I will use the most common parameter for measuring human wealth and the success of any state (or country) - GDP per capita. 2 out of the top 10 states by GDP per capita are Republican states. Those 2 states that made it in the top are Alaska and Wyoming, and they make it in the top 10 only because they happen to be the 51st and 49th least populated state, which can throw off the measurement for states that are heavily relaying on natural resources. 10 out of the worst 10 GDP per capita states are Republican states! https://simple.wikipedia.org... If this is not a proof for how backwards republican financial policies are, and that while on theory they may sound good, the actual results are the proof of their failure. Deregulation The Republican party ideology of deregulation, couldn't be more wrong and fresh than ever. The real reasons of the housing crash of 2008, were irresponsible and greedy banks giving loans to anyone without proper background check. The republican party is against big government and business restrictions. But this is what caused the housing crash, a system without any regulation is just too easy to be exploited by the smart and greedy businesses. Housing crashes, unmanaged oil spills, derailed trains, factories emitting high level of pollutions, overhunted species, defective and dangerous consumer products, food companies stuffing anything in the food that is not yet proven that is bad for you, those are the results from the actions of the much softer pitch that the Republican party calls "deregulation". And yes republicans now want to remove the Dod-Frank rule that prevents banks from doing what they were doing before 2008. How could any of this be good for anyone except for the person that is directly benefiting from cutting corners in order to make bigger profits? Nationalism and Military Nationalism https://www.merriam-webster.com... While not a policy, the Republican party always has been a strong pro nationalism party. Every country needs a good dose of nationalism, however extreme nationalism, has proven to turn into bad things especially when it is Integral Nationalism. Examples for Integral nationalism are Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany. I know many are discarding this similarity with the Republican nominee Trump. But the facts speak for themselves, everything else is opinion. Integral Nationalism is distinguished with the fallowing trends - anti-individualism (Trump holding a baby and calling it a "future worker"), radical extremism (just about everything Trump is doing is radical and extreme!), and aggressive-expansionist militarism (I hope "Rebuilding our deprived military" rings a bell. But what may not ring a bell is that US military currently spends more money than the next 10 countries combined, and has been doing so for years. And when you add to the fact that 7 of those are our allies, it is only fair to ask the question what we are rebuilding the military for? His strong desires to rebuild manufacturing aligns closer to this purpose than jobs for people, considering his track record of screwing everyone that has worked for him). I know this shifts more to Trump, but the truth is the hard-core republicans tend to align with this type of goals themselves - anti-liberal, America first, strong military, extreme nationalism. So, de facto Trump can only exist in a party that aligns with those core values, which unquestionably is the republican party. After highlighting what appears to be as obvious similarities it is only worth mentioning what integral nationalism regimes have done to humanity - they have destroyed themselves and all surrounding them! This is certainly one way to put the entire republican party to rest if those things materialize. https://en.wikipedia.org... read about the Risorgimento and Integral Nationalism. I want to go back to rebuilding the military again and reinforce what is rather very obvious but perhaps not to everyone" Here is the latest statistic on world military spending. https://www.sipri.org... What the above chart doesn't show is the compounded difference of spending this kind of money for years! The US military is so big already that it is being compared not to individual countries, but to the rest of the world combined, without our allies. That's how uneven and massive the US military is! So, if we are already that big, why would Trump say that it is deprived and that it needs to be rebuilt? Why would he want to back out of our allies if he is really concerned about the security of the country? If there is not a single country or even allied countries that can stand against you, what are we rebuilding for? Is it possible that his goals do not align with our allies - peaceful dominance vs. militaristic invasions? Is it possible that his goals align closer with someone like Putin who has done exactly that? While the questions may be viewed as somewhat farfetched, history speaks for itself. There has never been such large military buildup without invasion. And let's see how farfetched are the fallowing questions" Do you believe that Trump will do ANYTHING to defend his ego? Do you believe that he is capable of bulling other countries? Do you believe that putting the largest military the world has ever seen in his hands is a safe bet? All of the above questions are rather rythorical, since we have seen enough to say that he indeed is capable of all of the speculations mentioned above. There is really no other logical explanation for his actions than preparation for military invasions. The question with two possible outcomes is "Will anyone be able to stop him?". There shouldn't be a question of what he is trying to rebuild the largest military for, when even the next 10 largest militaries don't stand a chance.