>


If you want a recommendation, you should register as a Democrat, if only so you can vote in Democratic primaries and help push further left candidates to party nominations.

I am still a D. In 2012 I almost registered R to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, but by the time my state had primary voting it was too late and he was out.
/u/MyFavoriteArm (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I dunno, it seems like your ideal politician would be someone like... I dunno... Joe Biden? If that sounds wrong, I'm curious why? No politician is ever going to be perfectly tailored to your views, but in terms of what presidents actually do, he seems pretty in line with most of your bullet points. >

Haha, definitely not Joe Biden. I was/am actually a big Bernie guy. It was because I admired his honesty and he felt geniune and not a hypocrite unlike a lot of his competition
I only voted for Biden in the general because my state blocked the Green party from appearing on the ballot. I still feel like a hypocrite for voting for Biden in the general >

I guess I'd be interested in hearing you say more about this. You have this knee jerk "haha, definitely not Joe Biden" reaction, but why? If the sticking point is medicare for all, that's fine I guess, but can we agree that that's not happening right now no matter who the president is? He more or less checks your other left leaning boxes, and then is otherwise pretty moderate and chill. 
Maybe you just don't like Biden personally for whatever reason, but on a practical level, what is it that you actually want from a president that you're not getting from him? >

If he at least advocated for medicare-for-all rather than immediately promising to veto it, I'd be more receptive.
It also seems to me he doesn't want to do anything other than blame Manchinema or the Parliamentarian (who holds no power at all) for why he can't do anything.  
I just want him to fight for what's right rather than just what's politically convienent. Do I like that he did something about student loans? Yes I'll give that. It was obvious tho it was just to get votes for the midterms >


It also seems to me he doesn't want to do anything other than blame Manchinema or the Parliamentarian (who holds no power at all) for why he can't do anything. 

I mean...what is he gonna do, exactly? Those bills are passed through Congress.
Like, Biden's too milquetoast for me, too, and he's obviously playing games with shit like debt relief, but Democrats really are incredibly fucked by the makeup of the Senate. The fact that they hold 51 Senate seats is a miracle, and it's likely that, if nothing changes, they will not control the Senate for a long time after the 2024 election. >


if nothing changes, they will not control the Senate for a long time after the 2024 election.

That's precisely one thing I dislike about Biden. An effective leader gets those to buy in and effect change. LBJ did that. He was a flawed president, but rallied enough support to help get civil rights passed. 
It's a miracle that they held on in the senate in 2022 (Go Fetterman!)  yes but if Biden does nothing but accept defeat and put his feet up then yes, 2024 will be a bloodbath >

You can't get buy in when a party with massive systemic advantage - and in particular, the ability to block any legislation via a combination of the filibuster and their Senate advantage - has decided their one and only policy position is "fuck you".
LBJ wasn't working against a modern Republican Party. The parties of the 1960s were divided as much internally as between one another, and in fact the Civil Rights Act was the catalyst that created the modern Republican Party in the first place (as, essentially, northern Republicans merged with Democrats and southern Democrats merged with Republicans). In fact, the Civil Rights Act had more support from Republicans than it did from Democrats at the time, since many of the southern Democrats who would ultimately form the core of the modern Republican Party were still Democrats at the time. >

I would argue that you are broadly within the ambit of the current Democratic party. Let's look at the things that you say you have a problem with them on:

Guns: Good news! Democrats generally don't support banning all guns. We support banning some types of guns, requiring background checks, and safety courses. Hell, if the background checks and safety courses were universal, we probably wouldn't even need to ban specific types of guns.
I'm also sick of the culture wars. Democrats aren't the one making an issue of them. Democrats have had a trifecta for 2 years and have passed only one social issues bill, the Respect for Marriage Act. That bill had bipartisan support and was pretty milquetoast. The only reason that culture war issues keep coming up is because Republicans keep trying to do heinous things to LGBT folks. As a gay man myself who has trans friends, let me tell you: we do NOT want to be the focus of politics. Please, leave us alone.
Hate speech is absolutely protected free speech. I, and every person on the left that I personally know, is against criminalizing it. You won't find a single Democratic elected politician who supports criminalizing hate speech absent violence associated with it.
What exactly do you mean by personal responsibility? If you are referring to welfare programs, let's take a look at an imaginary person receiving benefits. We'll call him John. John never graduated high school and has practically no skills that are in demand. He's a drug addict with a criminal history. He's been homeless several times, but is currently living in public housing. What do we do about John to make sure that he takes "personal responsibility"? Do we let him starve to death? To my mind, personal responsibility is a great sounding narrative, but when you start looking at what it actually entails - letting people starve to death - it looks a lot less appetizing.
Broadly, Democrats are capitalists. There are some people on the far left who are not capitalists, and they vote with Democrats because Democrats are closer to where they are than Republicans, especially on social issues. Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism; we want to regulate it. Corporations should pay their fair share of taxes, and watchdogs should be in place to find bad actors, especially in the economic sectors. Many of us think that healthcare should probably be nationalized because insurance companies and some medical providers have engaged in bad acts which have hurt consumers and caused people to die. That's really about the only thing I think you'd get popular Democratic support for nationalizing. >


What exactly do you mean by personal responsibility?

I wasn't referring to welfare specifically. I believe welfare is an important tool to help lift those in desperate situations. I mean more in terms of stuff like criminal justice and student loans. I say this as someone who is mired in student loan debt. 
Do I wish there was better stuff in place to help those with private student loans? Yes. But at the end of the day, I signed on the dotted line, and I have to live with the consequences and have no one to blame but myself.
In terms of criminal justice, I believe that yes, there are societal factors that can help lead one to a life of crime. That being said, at the end of the day, you do the crime, you do the time. >

Alright, let's talk about that. Student loans are a burden on the economy. Millennials and Gen Z aren't starting families or buying houses because of them. The economy faces potentially disastrous effects unless student loan debt is curbed. It is in the broader public interest that we not suffer from a major economic crash due to student loans.
As for crime, I'd love to talk about that. I'm a former public defender. "Tough On Crime" policies generally, and paradoxically, promote crimes rather than prevent them. When you are convicted in the US, and you can't afford bond or bail, the following happens to you:

You lose your current housing and employment.
You lose most of your friends and family who aren't in the criminal justice system.
You meet a lot of criminals who are planning on being involved in criminal activity after they get out of jail.
You get a new mark on your record that makes it very difficult to find anything more than menial employment.

So, essentially, we are taking away these peoples' means of making a living using legal routes. We are setting them up to enter the criminal world. Is it any surprise, then, that these people turn to lives of crime? Recidivism is the logical product of being "Tough On Crime."
Instead, we need to make extensive use of psychologically tested means of dealing with criminals, creating a network of social workers, attorneys, and employers who can help these people get their lives back to being in conformity with society. >


Alright, let's talk about that. Student loans are a burden on the economy. Millennials and Gen Z aren't starting families or buying houses because of them. The economy faces potentially disastrous effects unless student loan debt is curbed. It is in the broader public interest that we not suffer from a major economic crash due to student loans.

What would your solution be to someone like me who has more private loans than public loans? I know I'm a dumbass for taking private loans, but what would the solution be?
I agree that tough on crime rhetoric has led to a lot of the bad situations we are in now. In fact, I more believe that the only people who belong in prison are those convicted of violent crime, or super white collar crime. 

Instead, we need to make extensive use of psychologically tested means of dealing with criminals, creating a network of social workers, attorneys, and employers who can help these people get their lives back to being in conformity with society.

What would that look like? I'm genuinely curious, and you definitely sound like you know what you're talking about >

As far as student loans, we don't have great answers yet. I think that they should be more readily dischargeable in bankruptcy where the debtor can prove that they have no reasonable likelihood of ever paying off the debt. We also need to get tuition costs down. Regardless, "personal responsibility" isn't an answer to the problem.
Regarding the solution to crime that I mentioned, it looks something like this:

A multi-track intake system is created for criminal cases. If a judge finds probable cause that a crime occurred, the defendant gets assigned a public defender who reviews the case and makes a recommendation about whether it should be contested or not. No plea bargaining - that will be handled a bit later under this system. 
If the crime is not contested, as most are not, then we shift to an "improvement period" style system where a judge works with a social worker, the prosecutor and the defense attorney to figure out what led the person to make the choice to commit the crime. It might be that they don't have money. It might be that they have anger problems. It might be that they have problematic views of some minority. Regardless, we get them things to help them solve those issues. If it's monetary, we work to get them a job. If it's anger issues or hate issues, they get a therapist. Same for substance abuse issues.
The defendant shows up in court monthly for 6 months to make sure that they are following the improvement plan laid out by the court and the attorneys. The judge can extend the supervision if it looks like the defendant may need a bit more time.
Should the defendant successfully complete the program, the case is sealed and nobody ever needs to know that a crime was committed.
Should the defendant not successfully complete the program, then we go to traditional plea bargaining.

Will this be expensive? Yes. Will it be time-consuming? Absolutely. But it's the only way to truly put a dent in crime. We have to address the reasons that people make these choices, and people may not even be aware of the reasons themselves.
Relying on "personal responsibility" has clearly not solved these issues. "Personal responsibility" as a policy motivator is a dead-end street, for the reasons that I explained regarding welfare. >

You make some very solid points. I will give you a !delta as you actually have given me a new way to look and think at some of these personal responsibility issues. 
Thank you! >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LucidLeviathan (51∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Relatively speaking, I'd say your political identity is 'about average'.
Most people don't buy into every stance that a political 'side' takes.  They may lean towards one or the other, but the number of people that completely agree with any platform is really very small (percentage-wise).
What you have to be careful of is the messages that one party or the other (or the other, or the other...) espouses.  It will be very strict, since that's what 'the party' says things should be like.  But since you're not a mindless robot, you can disagree with some (or even all) of a given party's beliefs.
You are probably an independent, or unaffiliated if you prefer.  You don't need to sign up for any party, and it doesn't really benefit you do make that association if you don't agree with most of their views. >


You are probably an independent, or unaffiliated if you prefer

The only reason I don't register as an independent is because of the primary system in my state. Otherwise I would.
Both major US parties feel too far right for me. But I feel like I'm not left enough to be socialist >

If both of the major parties are "too far right" then you are ultimately a Democrat, as they are the further left of the two parties in question.
If you want a recommendation, you should register as a Democrat, if only so you can vote in Democratic primaries and help push further left candidates to party nominations.