Actually, although I count myself in the classical conservative tradition, I disagree. In fact, both schools of thought have complex theoretical foundations. Although, liberalism does conduce to the expression of emotion more readily than does conservatism, that being an outgrowth of its' theoretical premises.
To start, liberalism, in its classical and subsequent variants, was a product of the Enlightenment. The idea that man was naturally - read spontaneously - rational and that he was corrupted by society. Things like culture, ethnicity, religion and the like were not core to man's identity and that if these were stripped away and law was made in conformance with man's natural rights, that society (and man) were ultimately perfectible.
Classical conservatives believe, unlike American conservatives and liberals, that the purpose of government is to answer Aristotle's first questions of politics, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?"
To which classical conservatives respond that the purpose of government is to nurture civic virtue. To reinforce those habits and customs, legitimized by historical usage over time, that make a harmonious and stable social order possible.
Classical conservatives believe in the free market as a tool, rather than an end in itself. They recognize that it is a powerful wealth creator, efficient to some degree, and a guard against an overweening state. However, they believe, as Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."
Consequently, classical conservatives support an ameliorative welfare state. (The welfare state was invented by two conservatives - Disraeli and Bismarck.) The purpose such a welfare state being to reconcile the public to the dynamics of a free market economy by alleviating the negative impact of old age, illness and temporary unemployment.
In this they differ from American liberals who see the welfare state as a lever to engineer social transformation. That is, to restructure society according to some abstract a priori vision. Classical conservatives argue that such a vision is ultimately going to be oversimple and will lead to adverse and unintended consequences.
Suffice to say, given these two constructs, it is relatively easy to see where liberalism might conduce - not always, however - to the expression of emotion. Liberalism sees man as spontaneously good and society as corrupting. Thus when men give expression to their feelings they are merely giving expression to their authenticity and acting in accord with their nature.
Conservatism argues that the control of oneself and conformance to norms that have evolved through history and have been tested by time makes civilization possible. Thus it tends to frown upon the unbridled expression of feelings unchecked by social convention.
Of course, particularly for liberalism, this is inadvertent. Because liberalism believes that it is rooted in a scientific understanding of man and natural rights, it believes that it is conforming society and public policy to those natural rights. Indeed, it tends to look upon conservatism, with its reliance not on empirical science but rather historical experience and cultural conventions, as being the "emotional" philosophy. Untethered to an empirical understanding of the "laws of nature and of nature's God."
This is actually all much more nuanced than the above suggests, and for reasons of space it is not possible to go into greater depth. However, this adequately summarizes things and explains why liberalism TENDS to CONDUCE (emphasis added) to the expression of the individual's feelings and subjective judgments. These feelings being an expression of man's authenticity and thus a surer expression of his inherently rational and social - and perfectible - nature.
Saw your update. Just to be clear on definitions.
Mr. Trump is a populist, not a conservative.
What Americans call conservatism is actually classical liberalism. Albeit in the American case leavened by a traditionalism rooted in Reformation Protestantism.
What Americans call liberal is actually "radical" liberalism. "Radical" here not meaning its contemporary usage, i. e. extremist. Rather its classical Greek usage, meaning "to the root of." The radical liberals agree with the classical liberals that the maximzation of freedom and the conformance of the law to natural rights is the main purpose of the state. However, the radical liberals argue that differences of wealth and power in society make such maximization of freedom problematic and they therefore argue for a popularly elected, but presumably disinterested, government to step in with a transformative welfare state to re-shape the society and correct those imbalances.
As noted, I come from the classical conservative tradition which traced its' intellectual pedigree from Aristotle, Aquinas and Edmund Burke.
American conservatism tends to social traditionalism, but it is, in its way, as prone to emotionalism as its liberal counterpart, but emotions pointing in opposite directions. As to populism, I will spare you that suffice to say that it often conduces to little more than emotion.
Radical liberals now view classic liberals as a racist neo nazi
Yes they do - or at least some of them do. I venture to say as a guy who works in politics that I get on personally quite well with some folks from the other side of the aisle.
In that connection, best not to extrapolate broad generalizations from the media's tight focus on the loudest voices and the brightest lights. This is all more complicated than it looks.
In any case, the National Socialists and the Communists ripped each other to pieces - this despite starting from the same intellectual root. Often the bitterest and most intense rivalries occur "within the family," as each side seeks to define the nature of truth for the whole.
It's more the the economic policies (and others) are simplified in a conservative system while to be able to justify weird policies the sorts of which the democratic party in the us proposes sometimes, you have to smart (I don't know how smart but smart) addressing human problems and the things like where the future of humanity should move towards seem like undeniably complex topics. Therefore what you get in the end is a group of people which function on and understand simple principles (and stick to it) while some other people propose concepts they themselves are not sure how they would work to a certain degree, how to sustain a belief which cannot be rationally justified? Be irrational ignorant and suspend the belief of things making sense (and I don't say this in a bad way)... For eg you can see people arguing why a certain team or singer or actors they support is better but to actually be able to quantify and measure it you would need complexity so people tend to argue irrational points. Which might work out better for us in the future? I don't know but that's just my analysis of it.
Conservatism / liberalism is not a political party.. and you will find people of all variety in all groups.
Democratic and Republican Party respectively both lie. Their only true incentive is increasing and maintaining their own personal power and they will put in whatever show required , for their adoring fans to accomplish that. Like any celebrity.
Where In history can you point to a time politicians individually have NOT been obscenely rich, whilst despite clap trap and catchy phrases, effecting small change for the common personal.
They are all or all become, self serving. If they had delusions of grander ( that they will bust into a sleeping self promoting self satisfying self gratifying decadent system of greed and destruction and make waves) prior to being instated, they are quickly disabused of that fancy and learn to play along to get along- I e keep their power and not get kicked out of the rich kids power trip club.
Conservatives get more power by lowering taxes, protecting the right to people to defend themselves, helping them be successful, putting bad people in prison and not letting them out no matter what the person in question offers them, promoting religion and virtues, treating mental illness, rewarding those who work hard, and providing good healthcare? Seems like the exact opposite of what someone just looking for power would do.
@slatyb Do you ever read what you write before you reply? Cutting funding for "free" healthcare that nobody actually uses because it's terrible, reducing prescription drug prices and restricting prescriptions for drugs that have high chances of addiction and substituting them with safer, more effective medications, that's somehow not improving healthcare? Strange thought
It's more that being financially stable allows you to be a politician but being in not so good of a position doesn't. So you're blaming it backwards. I have seen and 'known' enough politicians personally to know that is somewhat true. You need to be somewhat rich to be able to run and win, which takeds organising things and strategizing. I doubt someone barely being able to meet the ends is going to be able to run lol. You are perhaps right on the personal power thing but that is how the incentive system is structured, blame the game not the players.
both do and don't. depends on the person and what kind of thing were talking about.
exemples for reps: abortion since conception being bad (yea technically your killing a live creature i get it but still), cult of virginity, anything god related, anything linked to nationalism, tradition and patriotism, exc...
Lol creature. The topic of abortion i think has to do more with ethics and your morals
Opinion
37Opinion
Conservatism tends to be closer to reality based while liberalism is abstract based. Liberals always provide to their game plan by accusing the opponent with their own actions already being conducted. Liberalism is about erasing history and deploying their utopia that only exists in their imagination although proven to fail in communism on numerous occasions. Liberals will have you shut down the world to protect from a bug and then instigate close quarter protests/riots via George Soros-Nazi funding and attempting to keep open borders. The feminist government of Sweden imports immigration rape and murder against their own native women population, and pretend to be for rights and protection of women. The thing about liberals is they can never be wrong, as things start going to shit under their utopia, they simply ramp up doing more of the same because they emotionally believe they are right and with more of the same it will work no matter what. It is not until that NWO commissar comes up to them and puts a shovel into their soft air-conditioned moisturized hand and command “dig or die” will they understand and make the transition in their brains.
Well, first of all, your meme is completely the wrong way around, examples at the end.
Secondly, conservatism hasn't led to Trump, but the GOP has. They've been working for decades to prove that government doesn't work for the people (by disrupting it). They paved the way for someone like Trump, with dog-whistles, and packing the courts. They want to take you back to 100 years ago, ignoring all the positive things that happened in the mean time, including from Republican presidents like Nixon (the EPA).
True things that upset "conservatives":
COVID-19 is real, it has killed over 120,000 Americans, and there are three states where it has killed more than one in a thousand residents, worse than any country with more than 50,000 population (the exception being San Marino, with 42 deaths). The US is not doing as much testing per capita as many other countries (not even in the top 20).
Trump's inauguration crowd was smaller than Obama's.
People with nothing to hide don't obstruct investigations.
Oh, here's another one: Trump is actively trying to take health insurance away from 20 million Americans in the middle of a pandemic.
"More than 20 million Americans could lose their health coverage and protections for people with preexisting health conditions also would be put at risk if the court agrees with the administration. Nothing will happen immediately. The case won't be heard before the fall."
hosted.ap.org/.../trump-administration-urges-end-aca-pandemic-surges
Want to bet COVID-19 won't be a pre-existing condition for a couple of million Americans?
I voted disagree but am not a huge fan of the qualifier you put on there, as everyone acts primarily based on feelings, and that's a fact! Each truth (or perceived truth) has a different emotional impact on each person who believes it. For example, some people are angry about expensive healthcare while others are appalled by the national deficit. Some are frightened of mass shootings while others are frustrated by steadily increasing restrictions on gun ownership and usage. From how people shop to how they vote, it can clearly be seen time and time again that people respond more to the feelings associated with a fact than anything inherent about the fact itself, across the board.
Knowing this, it's important to understand one's own values in order to prioritize issues and act accordingly rather than blindly following the red team or blue team just because.
It's like a sport team giants vs A's. You stick to your side
Mostly it seems it's the conservatives with "alternative facts". Some things conservatives claim that are dead wrong:
* Climate change isn't happening, or if it is, it's not caused by fossil fuel consumption.
* There is significant voter fraud (and we need voter ID laws to prevent it).
* People choose their sexual orientation and can change it.
* Deficits matter, except under a Republican administration, when they don't.
* President Obama is not a US Citizen.
* Abstinence-only sex education is effective.
There are many others.
Disagree, both parties use emotion to try to whip up support.
Conservatives idealize an imaginary past and fight to cling to it desperately.
Democrats pay lip service to change while simply raising taxes to pay their wealthy donor class.
Now actual liberals where they’re interested in civil rights/liberty aren’t actually in the running these days in the states. Europe has a couple options and Canada kind of has the NDP/greens. But generally you need to limit them with a counterweight if conservatives or too much changes too quickly and people get left behind; or worse yet the change is enforced and you end up with fascism.
At the end of the day I try to vote to increase government accountability and transparency at every opportunity and consider all their promises to be drunk sincerity at best.
Here's my opinion. FISCAL conservatives are more likely to base things on facts. The more fiscally conservative, the more facts. Because think about the person who spends like crazy and doesn't care why, vs somebody who thinks before they spend. Who is more likely to want facts?
Socially, it depends. Social liberals and conservatives have extreme sides both not based on science, reason, logic, etc. The key then, is to find the most logical balance. This of course, is often helped by considering which is the most fiscally beneficial.
Either sides suck at emotions usually. They both want control somehow and feel upset if people don't agree.
Case in point, score 1 for the super center Austrian School, libertarians.
No OP. You can't just start changing the wording around in order to cherry pick your definintion. What you said is what you said. What you implied is what you implied. You are more than likely a social conservative but just as liberal fiscally as any liberal so you are NOT a full conservative. Can't cherry pick with blanket term conservative. Either it's full deal or not. You walked into that word trap. Be a man and fuckin own it.
Lol damn...
I appreciate at the very least you got the message without complaint. But it's likely for your own good anyways too. Being center is a peace of mind, but I have no problem with putting either a "conservative" or "liberal" in their place as if their labels matter at all. I don't sugar coat it. I will blast anybody, even my own family if I see fit. Constitution, bill of rights, free market capitalist advocacy comes before all.
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Yeah, like injected bleach gets rid of Covid-19; like Finland is part of Russia; like vetted edited journalism results in "fake news"; like inaugural crowds are "the biggest ever" when photographic evidence shows the contrary; the list goes on and on.
Conservatives have called the Sandy Hook massacre a "false flag" with "child actors".
Conservatives don't base their opinion on fact.
That's a fact.
Your question is idiotic. :)
Conservatives be like "facts don't care about your feelings" when their entire ideology is basically just ignoring facts because they don't fit their outdated world outlook.
What conservatives mean when they say liberal or left wing views are based around "emotions" is actually that they care about other human beings.
What "fact" speaks for not letting gay people marry? For not providing people with affordable health care? For putting children in cages?
Exactly, none.
If telling a Republican a lie makes them angry, then under normal circumstances there would be a lot of angry Republicans cause Trump has told tens of thousands. Fortunately for them, almost all of them are too stupid to know the difference.
Every time I've argued with conservatives and trump cultists all I hear is lies with an unwillingness to prove anything with links to credible sources of information to support their argument. They just like to think they're owning the libs by posting memes. (like someone here)
They immediately dismiss anything they don't want to believe as fake news. Even statistics from the fbi or cbo.
The alternate reality of lies and delusion conservatives / trump cultists live in is mind blowing.
Sort of. The leftist will sometimes deliver a sliver of truth but horribly take it out of context and mess with it. So in that sense you could say it’s a lie because it’s still a kind of deception.
Other times they can cite a truth that simply doesn’t relate to the discussion.
“A woman earns 73c for every dollar a man makes”.
I think the quoted figure is 77c, and it's not just a sliver of truth, is it?
There are studies supporting anything from 50% (looking at total earnings over 15 years, I expect that has to do with women choosing to stay home with children, so not really a fair comparison) to 87% (with regional variations). No study I've found (in an admittedly quick search) shows women earning the same or more.
www.politifact.com/.../
www.wthitv.com/.../...r-a-man-earns-507852191.html
www.stlouisfed.org/.../gender-wage-gap-may-be-much-smaller-than-most-think
www.miamiherald.com/.../article119314083.html
www.cnbc.com/.../...ns-a-woman-earns-49-cents.html
Well there was also women from 20-30 earn more than men in the age group. I think it was from the UK. But whatever, that’s besides the point.
Yeah, that’s a sliver of truth. I’m not saying the the phrase isn’t true. Taken literally, it’s true. What I said was that they take it out of context. So yeah, they say that and the implication is that it’s some fierce oppression. But like you said, it’s their choices that results in these outcomes. So it seems like we’re in agreement.
It's probably worth at least reading the subheading: "When aged 22-29, women earn an average of £1,111 more than men – but the roles are reversed with a vengeance once 30 is hit"
www.theguardian.com/.../women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds
I'm still not seeing it being taken horribly out of context. Suggesting that 15% isn't worth making a fuss about is no better than saying the menz are doing it on purpose, in my opinion.
Things have improved enormously since the 1960's, when it was really blatent, but there's still a disparity. What good reason would there be for any disparity, that hasn't been taken into account?
... yeah, okay. That’s consistent with everything that I’m saying. So... cool beans.
Lol 73c for every dollar great example. Cus leftist use to love bringing that up until it got debunked time and time again. Of course they didn't want to consider the amount of over time, time off taken and career field chooses.
One of many examples
OK, @that1tallguy, provide another, if you've got so many to choose from.
Or tell me, do masks help reduce the spread of the coronavirus?
By the way, the pay gap research takes into account the things you mention, but people like you keep ignoring that (and the fact that the 73c point was in the 1980s). That said, the difference today when controlling for all those things is only 2%, down from 3% five years ago (that's still $80,000, over a lifetime).
www.payscale.com/.../GPG2020-OverTime.svg
https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap
www.theguardian.com/.../dispelling-the-myths-why-the-gender-pay-gap-does-not-reflect-the-choices-women-make
"According to the World Economic Forum, there is no country on earth where women make as much as men for the same work. In their 2016 Global Gender Gap Report, it is estimated that, at current rates, it would take another 170 years to close the global pay gap between men and women."
Rayshard brooks got shot for just for falling asleep in his car. by the way republicans definitely lie too but not at the level of liberals.
“That said, the difference today when controlling for all those things is only 2%, down from 3% five years ago.”
That still reinforces my point for a 3rd time over. We already agree, you don’t need to drive that nail any deeper.
"Rayshard brooks got shot for just for falling asleep in his car."
Did anyone important say that, or is it just an internet thing? It's hardly the standard talking point, is it? Republican equivalent: "Armaud Arbery was wearing boots while "jogging"".
"by the way republicans definitely lie too but not at the level of liberals."
No, a much higher level. POTUS on down.
Does everyone wearing simple masks reduce the spread of coronavirus? (Yes.)
Is COVID-19 under control in the US? (No.)
Did General Flynn lie to the FBI? (Yes.)
Is the Trump administration trying to eliminate the ACA, including its provisions for pre-existing conditions? (Yes.)
Multiple news channels have said so. I could see you are a far lefty lol so I'm down ✌
Really? Multiple news channels have said Rayshard Brooks got shot for just for falling asleep in his car? Every one I've looked at say the 911 call was for that, but every news report included that he was resisting arrest.
Of course, if you feel I'm a "far lefty", and you don't like the facts I'm pointing out, well, thanks for disproving your own question.
I feel like you just quoted a bunch of examples which answers your own request, and subsequently my own point. Slivers if truth that get warped.
Asking for an example of "sliver of truth" insinuates you have a hard bias for the left. I won't deny facts if the research is there. Like I said before I know the right sells a narrative as well. The reason I said deuces is cus I know this conversation will go in circles so ✌ lol
It's only going in circles because you won't follow the conversation to its logical conclusion. Conservatives feel that coronavirus is a hoax, masks don't work, and Trump has done well to manage it, despite all the facts. They're the ones working without even a sliver of fact.
(And it was @AllThatSweetJazz who mentioned slivers of truth, I just wanted to see either of you come up with examples that backed you up.)
@AllThatSweetJazz What I showed was that even accounting for all the reasons anyone can think of that might lead to a reason for differences in gender pay, there is still an unreasonable difference, but you want to ignore both that, and the reasons that lead to the much higher differences (such as less education, less access to part-time professional positions, etc.) that make the gender pay gap much larger in practice.
@goaded “Conservatives feel that coronavirus is a hoax, masks don't work, and Trump has done well to manage it”
Well there’s more examples for you.
“there is still an unreasonable difference, but you want to ignore both that”
Wow. This is exactly the nonsense I’m talking about. The whole point is that the 77c number is so commonly said and so bunk. It doesn’t mean there’s no gap at all, that’s just you being dishonest and acting like that’s what I think. That’s exactly the weaselly crap talking about: Trying to salvage victimhood and oppression from the jaws of “well, I guess it’s not as bad as we thought”.
You don’t even seem to appreciate how your own like 10 examples fit the same model of what I’ve said about the nature of deception that’s typically coming from the left.
I guess you're upset that you're all being tarred with the same brush (by us mean lefties)?
Maybe you're right, maybe I shouldn't be using such over-broad generalisations. 72% of conservatives think the measures taken to control the virus so far have been reasonable, or not strict enough, after all. But that leaves 28% disagreeing, as opposed to 15% of moderates and 10% of liberals. (Harvard-Harris poll from May; there's a newer one, but I can't find the crosstabs for that one.)
The same poll shows 37%, 50%, and 74% (Lib, Mod, Con) satisfaction with the federal government's response to the spread of the coronavirus. Conversely, approval of the WHO: 78%, 65%, 40%.
Distrust of Trump's statements on the spread of coronavirus? 81%, 63%, 27%.
That means 73% of conservatives still trust (46% say "a lot") what Trump says about it, despite the fact he said it would go away by April, it would only kill 60,000 people in the US, that it's a Democratic hoax that he's not dealing well with it, etc.
Maybe I'll try to stick to saying "lots of conservatives", rather than "conservatives", in future.
Lots of conservatives feel that coronavirus is a hoax, masks don't work, and Trump has done well to manage it. Better? (And I'd say that was a good indication of "emotions and impulse", that they don't even agree with their own party's voters, let alone the facts.)
Don't you think I could find examples of conservatives saying "the Democrats" or "leftists" want to take away all your guns, or turn the country into a socialist state, or other such nonsense?
@goaded I don’t see what the problem is with those percentages.
“Lots” isn’t any better, because no, not even lots think the whole thing is a hoax, nor that masks don’t work, how are you coming to those conclusions? And Trump did fine by the way.
“And I'd say that was a good indication of "emotions and impulse", that they don't even agree with their own party's voters, let alone the facts.”
Wow. Dumb.
Firstly, you’re demonstrating more agreement than disagreement with both the voters the facts if anything. Second, why would agreeing with everything be a reflection of the facts? Democrats bending the knee to progressive dogma is exactly what “emotions and impulse” would be. They’ll agree to whatever nonsense you want if it means you’ll vote for them and not Trump.
“Don't you think I could find examples of conservatives saying "the Democrats" or "leftists" want to take away all your guns, or turn the country into a socialist state”
Sure, but that would actually have far more demonstrable evidence, so that’s probably not a road you want to take lest you shoot yourself in the foot.
See now y'all are going to be going in circles 🤷♂️ until 1 of you shuts tf up
That’s often true for these arguments, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t correct and incorrect points being asserted that are getting airtime.
He did. You didn’t bother to explain your position. But me just disagreeing with you is apparently some reconcilable stance? No. You’re just exemplifying the “Trump is bad no matter what” crowd if you would dismiss me out of hand when I simply disagree with you.
y'all go private message each other or some shit
I didn't want to "play". You just brought it up. All I'm saying is that I don't see any major issues.
All liberalism classical and contemporary are homosexual and satanic in nature
Contemporary conservatism is just neo-liberalism
It's a shame. Both sides use information to misguide their constituents.
Despite this contemporary conservatives are more logical and rely more on facts
Democrats run on narratives
Narratives win every time
Definition of CNN news. *Hence brooks was only sleeping in his car
Did they really? Lmao I wonder if his abused kids believed that
It does lol
dude i seriously don't think that's a "liberal" vs "democrat" thing. i think both ends of that spectrum have snowflakes that can't handle facts, cause they prefer their delusion... i mean what do you think christianity is still around for?
it's people being shitty weaksauce, not "the political direction" being shit.
That's true but I think on average more liberals get salty when you spit facts. Conservatives may argue but liberals get pissed.
i think it's not "more liberals get salty". i think it's "there's more liberals". so that sounds a bit like rhetoric but that is a very different meaning. i mean there's a proportional relationship between the size of a group and the amount of black sheep in that group.
i am willing to agree 100%, that a LOT of highly educated experts seem to have very nonsensical bullshit views and are not very good at all at defending their standpoints because their standpoints are unreasonable and emotional.
and i'm willing to go out on a very slim branch and say that has to do with the laws we have around emancipation of minorities, cause that encourages entiteled little bitch behavior. if you make "victimizing yourself" a condition to have an advantage, that's what people will become good at.
because i do also think that the far right are as unreasonable and dumb. but there's currently just fewer of, cause there's generally less conservative people right now.
im liberal by your measure... my mind is both analytical and im capable of empathy. no stupid right wing internet meme is going to alter that
Classic liberal or sjw?
Disagree.
Liberals opinions are based on anarchistic idiocy.
Conservative opinions are based on religious idiocy.
Democracy leads into chaos, because masses of stupid people always outvote minority of smart people.
That's why I support NWO - Global dictatorship of the future: Controlled society is the safe society.
Lol you lost me at the end
Ok, lol, what would you change at the end?
Let the world burn
But where would you live then, on the Moon? :P
Mars sounds nice
Cool, I like Mars :D
That's what PragerU wants you to think as they tell you all the "facts".
The reality is that both liberals and conservatives think their views are based on facts because in peoples minds, something is "unbiased" by having the RIGHT bias.
Both sides do this. Historically the left have been the intellectuals while the right have been the religious lunatics. Nowadays the left is dumb as a bag of shit, useless and ineffective to stop the right. The right are now slightly more objective but they're still emotional and ignorant.
No, that's completely backwards. Conservatives don't need facts, they have unalterable beliefs.
There was a study on this I recall that concluded Republicans are significantly more susceptible to fear, and that makes perfect sense to me because they're mostly reactionaries and reactionaries are scared little bitches
The truth is much closer to the middle. I suppose that it's closer to Ted Cruz that it is to AOC, but both parties are terrible and no one really wants to hear the truth.
No. There is logical thought and emotional impulse on all sides. It just so happens that conservatives are correct on a larger total number of issues than liberals (but still extremely wrong on many).
Currently that is generally the case, but that's a matter of the times. There were times when conservatives where the crazy ones.
I agree it's seems conservatives became classic liberals and modern liberals became delusional
This really summarizes how it is. Exactly how democrats reply, anger and hatred. No matter the topic, they lie and obfuscate.
Conservative pretentious faux intellectual talking points are based on false dichotomies like a the BS idea that logic and emotion can't lead you to the same conclusion. Agree or disagree?
You just need to look how easily some trump fans get triggered on here to see that's bs.
Not sure about that because a lot of conservatives believe god is real but there is no proof that god does exist
Well, if you look at the most dividing party and with racists intent the democrats are number one in that field. Look what the democrats did to black families.
No. The opinions of ALL extremists on BOTH sides are based on impulse and emotion.
It's very accurate and my political opponents prove it time and time again
When asked why they voted, liberals use words like "i felt" "I feel" . Conservatives usually give specific reasons why.
Blatantly false both sides are braindead who couldn’t bring up a fact if their lives depended on it
Well no more like the other way around.
I disagree
Both think with emotion.
This is really depends on the person.
Good joke.
Nope
Nope
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions