A rare reason to support a political candidate: deeper calmness

We are thinking that by debating a topic we can find a better solution. That if we talk with someone with an opposing view than ours, they will remind us of variables we weren't considering before, which we need to in order to determine the best path forward.

But what very frequently happens is that people get nervous and can't think as logically as they intended to.
- Maybe they don't accept that the other person is against them, which keeps them stuck, repeatedly thinking about that situation,
- or they start imagining the future and getting worried about their imagination
They end up creating an infinite number of ways to connect where they are right now to the only solution they are able to think about at that time. For example, the current list of logical fallacies in Wikipedia is substantial and seems to have the tendency to keep growing as intellect grows. This process ignores the fact that one is feeling unpleasant and wants to stop feeling so.

We can do better. When deciding who to support, we can
- be aware that we don't want to feel unpleasantly
- try to determine who creates more calmness by feeling it when reading them, seeing them, or listening to them
- be aware that we don't need to agree with everything someone says or does in order to support them
- be open to there being more solutions to a situation than the ones we can think at a given moment
- remember, or explore the possibility, that feeling responsible for oneself feels more empowering than depending on or blaming someone else. If we still need help after feeling responsible for ourselves, we can look for help. But feeling responsible feels like a solid base on which to build our whole life
- be aware of any feeling we get when we read or see something, and question if whoever sent or created that wanted us to feel that way for some reason

These are, in my opinion, more useful than determining if what someone says is true or false, or if it's the best solution. The best solution will come out of being calm. In my experience, only after accepting a situation do clarity and creativity come by themselves.

Maybe one day, while we develop this awareness, debates will happen over chat instead. People will have more time to answer, less opportunity to get nervous, and it will be easier to encourage only truth to come out. Maybe we’ll notice that people that are too scared of the future are temporarily not fit to decide the future of a nation, and we’ll guide them to resources to ameliorate this before inviting them to vote. 

Now, deciding who to support seems like a highly polarizing decision, but can't we notice that it shouldn't? The two positions seem to align to the two fundamental and apparently opposing forces of nature:
- the masculine, safe, active, assertive aspect of life, which some could relate to the Republican Party
- the feminine, pleasant, loving and visionary aspect, which may seem to align with the Democratic Party.

But can't we see that the more we blur these lines, the more capable we are? Can't we see that safety without vision turns life dull? That vision without grounding doesn't last long? After almost 200 years of dancing back and forth between these two "sides", how long will we deprive ourselves of the possibility of feeling the power that balance provides?

These are the reasons I'd support Trump. In my perception, he promotes more calmness. The content of some of what he says may not seem to promote calmness sometimes, but in general he promotes it more than he doesn't. It may take nuance and subtlety in order to perceive this. The mainstream media also takes a lot of what he says out of context to incite engagement through nervousness. That's why long, unedited content is closer to truth. Developing our capacity to pay attention in a focused, consistent manner is vital.

We have a choice to act because of care or because we are scared. Whatever we do, let's do it for the better reason.