Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I think evolutionary modernity gives a very succinct explanation of the difference between the Left and the Right.

You can go down the list of issues, and in virtually all of them we can see the conservative position more closely falling in line with what our evolutionary instincts would want us to do, while the liberal position is often based on some sort of academic or philosophical argument. The latter rarely would've been optimal for producing offspring in a hunter-gatherer society, while the former often mocks "intellectuals" and academia. This distinction is pronounced with social issues; I'm not sure if it exists with fiscal ones.

A few examples:

- immigration. Our tribalistic instincts tend to favor people who exist within our "tribe"; the idea that we should go out and help people from other countries, especially ones that don't look like us, is a rather novel concept.
- traditional values. This one's obvious.
- animal rights. This one's obvious.
- gay marriage. Hunter gatherers wouldn't get much benefit from violating ingrained social institutions or doing something that risks sexual disease and doesn't help produce offspring, so it's not within evolution to stick up for a small minority of people who do something "icky" and against social norms. There's no rational basis for opposing it, but that's a separate question.
- anti-intellectualism. Reading books and studying papers wouldn't make much sense several thousand years ago in the Sahara, so we see lots of denigration of "academics" among conservatives, because academia's arguments are often very abstract and disconnected from intuition.

A big component of this difference may be culture; another may be temperament, .i.e. how much conformity you are inclined to. Intelligence may also play a role; while there's a lot of overlap here, liberals do average noticeably higher IQ's than conservatives*.

In either case, I think this, along with the expanding moral circle, does a great job of explaining the difference. I suspect that the intellectual rigor of the replies will reveal a similar pattern as well. Thoughts?




* Sources:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/13/are-conservatives-dumber-than-liberals (makes a case for libertarians being even smarter, although that's a different discussion)

http://theconversation.com/do-smart-people-tend-to-be-more-liberal-yes-but-it-doesnt-mean-all-conservatives-are-stupid-57713 Which does point out the fact that this is a generalization

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/

etc. (this is a pretty well-replicated finding)

The main difference right now is that Liberals are butt hurt and conservatives aren't.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I suspect that the intellectual rigor of the replies will reveal a similar pattern as well.

I do notice a pattern, yes.

http://i.imgur.com/DD8R6aD.gif

Okay so tell me what we conclude from this. Or rather what you conclude and what you feel others should conclude. If you wanted to describe to someone as quickly as possible what this shows, what would you say?

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so tell me what we conclude from this. Or rather what you conclude and what you feel others should conclude. If you wanted to describe to someone as quickly as possible what this shows, what would you say?

Your intuition is great for some things, but sh*tty for others, and some people use it for the wrong things.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Your intuition is great for some things, but sh*tty for others, and some people use it for the wrong things.

I see, so this indeed wasn't another "Liberals are better than conservatives" topic. That is good, some people have done those before and they never end well.

Originally posted by Surtur
I see, so this indeed wasn't another "Liberals are better than conservatives" topic. That is good, some people have done those before and they never end well.

I don't see you complaining about threads calling SJW's mentally ill, or really anything that works the other way.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I don't see you complaining about threads calling SJW's mentally ill, or really anything that works the other way.

That requires intellectual honesty

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I don't see you complaining about threads calling SJW's mentally ill, or really anything that works the other way.

That's good, because you don't see me complaining about this either.

The hardcore sjw types are mentally ill.

But they're typically not stupid. Your typical SJW has above average intelligence (college student, often from an elite university, etc.). Your typical fundamentalist or hardcore right wing Christian is usually pretty stupid.

(Or is that against forum rules, while calling people mentally ill isn't?)

Why would it be against the rules? Christians *are* stupid.

Also a person could be intelligent and still have some kind of mental illness.

Originally posted by Surtur
Why would it be against the rules? Christians *are* stupid.

Not all of them, but there's a definite correlation if you split it between Christians and atheists.

But I'm just saying that because a thread calling conservatives stupid was closed despite that being a very well replicated finding in psychometrics anyway.



I know, that's why I said "but".

In my opinion they lack the critical thinking skills to actually be intelligent, what they are, are sheep that parrot what they have been told or what they have read. They almost never do their own research to verify what they've read or been told is accurate.

Like I said, it's because these threads don't tend to end well. This doesn't mean I have problem with it, I've just noticed that especially the "liberal vs conservative" thing can lead to flame wars.

Originally posted by Surtur
Like I said, it's because these threads don't tend to end well. This doesn't mean I have problem with it, I've just noticed that especially the "liberal vs conservative" thing can lead to flame wars.

Good thing I'm an independent, although I'm sure certain people will be in here shortly claiming I'm a conservative, neocon or maybe even Hitler.

On the other hand there aren't really that many people left who post in this part of the forum so..it might not turn out so bad. No worse than any other recent thread I'd imagine.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Good thing I'm an independent, although I'm sure certain people will be in here shortly claiming I'm a conservative, neocon or maybe even Hitler.

Progressives say the same thing about Obama, fwiw.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
But they're typically not stupid. Your typical SJW has above average intelligence (college student, often from an elite university, etc.). Your typical fundamentalist or hardcore right wing Christian is usually pretty stupid.

(Or is that against forum rules, while calling people mentally ill isn't?)


I would say they have a high emotional IQ but tend to have a disconnect with other things as they place so much value in themselves.

I realize thats not universally true but SJW's come across that way imo.

I just feel bad for hardcore christians, they are led by something that they may not believe in but feel forced to follow.

Well, as a Catholic, I never thought of myself as stupid (or forced to be believe in what I believe). I can certainly hold my own in a logical discussion. I understand the scientific method, am IMO pretty well read and realize the logical implausability of my religion if we base it solely on evidence-based deductive reasoning.

But don't let that stop you from forming generalized opinions on an entire group of ppl. Can't say I blame you. The loud ones do certainly make an impression.

The problem with intelligence, and especially of the young people in college is..they quite often mistake intelligence for wisdom.

But it leads to all kinds of hilarious things.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Well, as a Catholic, I never thought of myself as stupid (or forced to be believe in what I believe). I can certainly hold my own in a logical discussion. I understand the scientific method, am IMO pretty well read and realize the logical implausability of my religion if we base it solely on evidence-based deductive reasoning.

But don't let that stop you from forming generalized opinions on an entire group of ppl. Can't say I blame you. The loud ones do certainly make an impression.

I literally pointed out that it was a generalization in the OP. But that doesn't refute the statistical trend.

Originally posted by Surtur
The problem with intelligence, and especially of the young people in college is..they quite often mistake intelligence for wisdom.

But it leads to all kinds of hilarious things.

There's also the danger of mistaking experience for wisdom. It seems like wisdom is some weighted combination of experience and intelligence - but even then, people sometimes try to apply general life wisdom to areas where it really doesn't matter. Wisdom plays a small role in your performance in math competitions, for instance.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I literally pointed out that it was a generalization in the OP. But that doesn't refute the statistical trend.

Statistical.trends vary by source and generally say a lot about who's pushing them.

Anti semite's push "statistical trends" about jewish domination of the media, for example.

I'm sorry, but did you just try to discredit the validity of statistics as a mathematical subject because some people use it wrong?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I'm sorry, but did you just try to discredit the validity of statistics as a mathematical subject because some people use it wrong?

So jews control the media and banks, than?

It's all about da stats!

Originally posted by cdtm
So jews control the media and banks, than?

It's all about da stats!

This one time I saw this guy make a multiplication error.

I knew it; arithmetic is b*ullshit!

Statistical trends aren't hard math, though.

And you're not exactly an unbiased source. All you do is attack conservative's here.

Originally posted by cdtm
Statistical trends aren't hard math, though.


Um, yes they are. And they're responsible for a substantial portion of modern society, include quantum field theory, high frequency trading, engineering, actuarial science, etc.



Nice ad hominem. A more competent thinker would have actually pointed out specific flaws in my methodology to discredit my statistical trends, instead of just dismissing all use of mathematics on face because you can find one example of someone making an arithmetic boo-boo. But strangely enough, you can't do that.

Sorry, but:



You framed the tone of this "debate" yourself.

Happy hunting troll.

Liberals and conservatives both have equally viable philosophies. And no human person falls into a single category, everyone overlaps in some way or another. A healthy balance of government regulation is good, total socialism where govt controls everything is horrible. Elements of socialism where we get welfare for the neediest is good.

The ppl I have a problem with are the radical obstructionist republicans. And the democrats aren't helping much.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
There's also the danger of mistaking experience for wisdom. It seems like wisdom is some weighted combination of experience and intelligence - but even then, people sometimes try to apply general life wisdom to areas where it really doesn't matter. Wisdom plays a small role in your performance in math competitions, for instance.

Wisdom does play little part in math. But then math plays little part in being able to handle the real world. That is what these kids seem to struggle with.

Originally posted by Surtur
Wisdom does play little part in math. But then math plays little part in being able to handle the real world. That is what these kids seem to struggle with.

There's a difference between handling the real world on a practical, day to day basis, and "handling the real world" as in having a coherent ideology and political philosophy. The latter would ideally be dependent on empirical evidence and the scientific method, both of which are more heavily influenced by intellectual ability than "wisdom".

Originally posted by cdtm
Sorry, but:



You framed the tone of this "debate" yourself.

Happy hunting troll.

Nice job with your ad hominem fallacies. You sound sooooo smart committing them.

LMAO, I was wrong this thread ended very well.

No. Some of the most intelligent people I know are conservatives. It has more to do with personal experience than it does with intelligence.

For example, a worker that at one point perhaps lost his job for medical reasons and has had to rely on welfare services to keep afloat is likely more sympathetic to it than someone who was never in that situation. Alternatively, a police officer in a border state who deals with the worst of our immigrants on a daily basis may be less sympathetic to illegal immigration than someone who hasn't been exposed to that.

Originally posted by Surtur
The problem with intelligence, and especially of the young people in college is..they quite often mistake intelligence for wisdom.

But it leads to all kinds of hilarious things.

The funny thing is, I was a LOT smarter in college if you base it solely on subjects such as science and math. As a freshman, I remember a time when I could easily multiply up to 3 rows of 3 digit numbers against each other just solely in my head. Numbers just flowed and "made sense" in my head. I could speed read a 300 page textbook in an hour or 2 and have an exceedingly high retention. My tested IQ was in the 140s.

I avoided drinking til I was in my senior year and was not in a relationship til after graduation (had a gf during high school but we broke up right before college). I barely had any friends, practically knew zero sports and, looking back, I was a bit of a condescending douche.

I also held onto a more liberal ideology when I was in college. Essentially, pro-choice (hated kids) and was more agnostic than Catholic.

Almost 20 years later and I can barely do 2 rows of 2 digits. My last IQ test scored barely in the mid 120s, speed reading is still there but retention/understanding is nowhere as close. Guess a few decades of heavy partying and drinking takes its toll. Not to mention stress from work and relationships.

But throughout all that, I feel that I have grown immensely and the me now is a far better me than I was 20 years ago. Experience has taught me how to patiently face complex real life problems and to deal with them when I can or adjust and accept them when I cannot (knowing full well that time may change the nature of the problem enough to solve it or give me new insights for a solution). The old me would practically implode when faced with a problem that I couldn't solve right away. I have far better social skills, I have empathy and a far better ability to accept conflicting views.

I am more conservative leaning these days and have, thru time and experience, reversed a lot of my old views.

I dunno, not sure if the older posters here have experienced something similar to this. But just thought I'd share.

There is the saying and I'm only paraphrasing.

If you are not a Liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a Conservative at 35 you have no brain.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
No. Some of the most intelligent people I know are conservatives. It has more to do with personal experience than it does with intelligence.

For example, a worker that at one point perhaps lost his job for medical reasons and has had to rely on welfare services to keep afloat is likely more sympathetic to it than someone who was never in that situation. Alternatively, a police officer in a border state who deals with the worst of our immigrants on a daily basis may be less sympathetic to illegal immigration than someone who hasn't been exposed to that.

Anecdotes aside, the statistical correlation is pretty well replicated; it's not too much of a stretch to say that it may be causative.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The funny thing is, I was a LOT smarter in college if you base it solely on subjects such as science and math. As a freshman, I remember a time when I could easily multiply up to 3 rows of 3 digit numbers against each other just solely in my head. Numbers just flowed and "made sense" in my head. I could speed read a 300 page textbook in an hour or 2 and have an exceedingly high retention. My tested IQ was in the 140s.

I avoided drinking til I was in my senior year and was not in a relationship til after graduation (had a gf during high school but we broke up right before college). I barely had any friends, practically knew zero sports and, looking back, I was a bit of a condescending douche.

I also held onto a more liberal ideology when I was in college. Essentially, pro-choice (hated kids) and was more agnostic than Catholic.

Almost 20 years later and I can barely do 2 rows of 2 digits. My last IQ test scored barely in the mid 120s, speed reading is still there but retention/understanding is nowhere as close. Guess a few decades of heavy partying and drinking takes its toll. Not to mention stress from work and relationships.

But throughout all that, I feel that I have grown immensely and the me now is a far better me than I was 20 years ago. Experience has taught me how to patiently face complex real life problems and to deal with them when I can or adjust and accept them when I cannot (knowing full well that time may change the nature of the problem enough to solve it or give me new insights for a solution). The old me would practically implode when faced with a problem that I couldn't solve right away. I have far better social skills, I have empathy and a far better ability to accept conflicting views.

I am more conservative leaning these days and have, thru time and experience, reversed a lot of my old views.

I dunno, not sure if the older posters here have experienced something similar to this. But just thought I'd share.

Can you name one liberal position you once held that can be refuted by having better social skills/etc.?

Originally posted by Silent Master
There is the saying and I'm only paraphrasing.

If you are not a Liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a Conservative at 35 you have no brain.

nope. it's actually "if you're not a rebel by the age of 20, you got no heart, but if you haven't turned establishment by 30, you've got no brains" (swimming with sharks).

nice try tho

Originally posted by Silent Master
There is the saying and I'm only paraphrasing.

If you are not a Liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a Conservative at 35 you have no brain. So people who disagree with you are brainless? Is Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins brainless?

Originally posted by Firefly218
So people who disagree with you are brainless? Is Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins brainless?

You actually think I'm the original author of that quote?

*falsified quote

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nope. it's actually "if you're not a rebel by the age of 20, you got no heart, but if you haven't turned establishment by 30, you've got no brains" (swimming with sharks).

nice try tho

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Anecdotes aside, the statistical correlation is pretty well replicated; it's not too much of a stretch to say that it may be causative.

Can you name one liberal position you once held that can be refuted by having better social skills/etc.?

Being a parent has shown me the value of innocent human life. Gaining the emotional and spiritual connection that I lacked in my youth made me get back in touch with my Catholic roots.

It is not about refuting positions with cold logic, but being able to attain a point of view that allows you to better understand and accept the realities of life, gaining a calm and peace of mind I couldn't when I was a lot younger.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Being a parent has shown me the value of innocent human life. Gaining the emotional and spiritual connection that I lacked in my youth made me get back in touch with my Catholic roots.

It is not about refuting positions with cold logic, but being able to attain a point of view that allows you to better understand and accept the realities of life, gaining a calm and peace of mind I couldn't when I was a lot younger.

Sorry to sound rude; your growth and maturity may have helped you on practical matters, but that doesn't mean that they've substantively improved your ideological stances. Large scale political policies that impact millions-billions of people better contain cold logic, moreso than your "spiritual connection".

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Being a parent has shown me the value of innocent human life. Gaining the emotional and spiritual connection that I lacked in my youth made me get back in touch with my Catholic roots.

It is not about refuting positions with cold logic, but being able to attain a point of view that allows you to better understand and accept the realities of life, gaining a calm and peace of mind I couldn't when I was a lot younger.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/166/Statement-of-Conversion

Originally posted by Silent Master
There is the saying and I'm only paraphrasing.

If you are not a Liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a Conservative at 35 you have no brain.

Interesting that you say that, given that it was mainly those 25 year olds that stood on the right side of history with civil rights, women's rights, opposition to the Vietnam War, gay marriage, etc.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Sorry to sound rude; your growth and maturity may have helped you on practical matters, but that doesn't mean that they've substantively improved your ideological stances. Large scale political policies that impact millions-billions of people better contain cold logic, moreso than your "spiritual connection".

Humans aren't beings of pure cold logic, tho. We also have morality, compassion and conscience.

We, for example, would not kill the few to save the many as that would violate our basic humanity. Nor do we believe that the ends justify the means for as long as it is mathematically advantageous.

Political policies need to tempered with logic and humanity. And policymakers need as much empathy as they do intelligence if they want to improve people's lives.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Humans aren't beings of pure cold logic, tho. We also have morality, compassion and conscience.


To inform premises of moral philosophy, not to take the place of the logic.



We do things like that all the time, it's just masked. We do that every time we commit soldiers to a conflict or police officers to a dispute, knowing that there's a good chance of deaths occurring. Heck, we do that when we develop roads, given that there will be some car fatalities, because we believe that the aggregate utility derived from having a transportation system is worth it.



Yeah, but I fail to see how the conservative positions do this at all.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
*falsified quote

Thank you for admitting that you don't know what paraphrasing is.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Thank you for admitting that you don't know what paraphrasing is.

You didn't paraphrase it, you completely changed "liberal" to "rebel" and "conservative" to "establishment". Unless if you think the establishment and conservative are synonymous, and liberals are always the rebels or something.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
To inform premises of moral philosophy, not to take the place of the logic.

We do things like that all the time, it's just masked. We do that every time we commit soldiers to a conflict or police officers to a dispute, knowing that there's a good chance of deaths occurring. Heck, we do that when we develop roads, given that there will be some car fatalities, because we believe that the aggregate utility derived from having a transportation system is worth it.

Yeah, but I fail to see how the conservative positions do this at all.

Morality and compassion should superscede logic if we want to be a humane society.

No, people fight to protect themselves and others. We take risks with our daily lives as we understand that living IS risk, but these are risks we CHOOSE to take for ourselves. We DO NOT, however, take lives out of expediency unless we have lost our humanity.

You are labeling my position into a far-right conservative position. When my exact words were "leaning". I am, I believe, within the more moderate middle ground.

I am still a firm believer in climate change. I support gun regulations (but also understand the right of a person to own firearms, although I do not own one myself), I feel do not tolerate racism in its vilest forms but also (as a minority who actually HAS experienced racism in the US) do not implode (and can laugh when it is funny) when ppl make racial jokes, I support equality (but true equality, not the "equality" dictated by popular media).. I believe in freedom of speech but also believe that we need to take responsibility for what we say (but only up to the point of us being accountable ito the ppl we reasonably and directly affected by it).

If there were stances that pushes me towards the conservative position, it would be abortion and freedom of religion. I am pro-life. I am Catholic (and adhere to Catholic values but also understand that this should only apply to myself and my family).

There are IMO stupid things from both sides of the political spectrum, what surprises me is how much some ppl can see only the good in their ideology and only the bad in the other side without attempting to try and meet in the middle.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Morality and compassion should superscede logic if we want to be a humane society.

No, people fight to protect themselves and others. We take risks with our daily lives as we understand that living IS risk, but these are risks we CHOOSE to take for ourselves. We DO NOT, however, take lives out of expediency unless we have lost our humanity.

You are labeling my position into a far-right conservative position. When my exact words were "leaning". I am, I believe, within the more moderate middle ground.

I am still a firm believer in climate change. I support gun regulations (but also understand the right of a person to own firearms, although I do not own one myself), I feel do not tolerate racism in its vilest forms but also (as a minority who actually HAS experienced racism in the US) do not implode (and can laugh when it is funny) when ppl make racial jokes, I support equality (but true equality, not the "equality" dictated by popular media).. I believe in freedom of speech but also believe that we need to take responsibility for what we say (but only up to the point of us being accountable ito the ppl we reasonably and directly affected by it).

If there were stances that pushes me towards the conservative position, it would be abortion and freedom of religion. I am pro-life. I am Catholic (and adhere to Catholic values but also understand that this should only apply to myself and my family).

There are IMO stupid things from both sides of the political spectrum, what surprises me is how much some ppl can see only the good in their ideology and only the bad in the other side without attempting to try and meet in the middle.

Catholic and pro life here.

Are you pro life based on religious belief? Or would you be pro life regardless?

I ask this, because I was pro life long before I understood the positions of Catholicism. As a kid, my reasoning was simple, and hinged on the logic that a "human being" and a fetus are one and the same.. Only at different stages of their development. It was actually quite a shock to learn the majority supported pro choice positions.

Of course, now I understand life isn't that simple. Forcing a human being to do anything, let alone give birth, is a serious consideration.

I think I put a lot more thought behind the issue than most, though. That's not an insult to pro choicers, it's just not thought about that humans don't really value the unborn like they do the born (Even up to the moment of crowning, where the born and unborn are essentially the same thing developmentally.)

Originally posted by cdtm
Catholic and pro life here.

Are you pro life based on religious belief? Or would you be pro life regardless?

I ask this, because I was pro life long before I understood the positions of Catholicism. As a kid, my reasoning was simple, and hinged on the logic that a "human being" and a fetus are one and the same.. Only at different stages of their development. It was actually quite a shock to learn the majority supported pro choice positions.

Of course, now I understand life isn't that simple. Forcing a human being to do anything, let alone give birth, is a serious consideration.

I think I put a lot more thought behind the issue than most, though. That's not an insult to pro choicers, it's just not thought about that humans don't really value the unborn like they do the born (Even up to the moment of crowning, where the born and unborn are essentially the same thing developmentally.)

Pro life regardless. Once I became a parent, I have gotten this strong instinct to be protective of children. If anything, it was the want to become a better person for my wife and daughter that allowed me to reconnect with my faith.

Our logical views on pro-life is very similar. Tho, I would warn that it is a very touchy subject for a lot of ppl and bringing it here might risk derailing the thread.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Pro life regardless. Once I became a parent, I have gotten this strong instinct to be protective of children. If anything, it was the want to become a better person for my wife and daughter that allowed me to reconnect with my faith.

Our logical views on pro-life is very similar. Tho, I would warn that it is a very touchy subject for a lot of ppl and bringing it here might risk derailing the thread.

True, unfortunately.

A rare thing to see somebody that's not "woman's rights" or "religious right" on the issue, though.

Much less someone not informed by talk radio garbage. Kind of annoying having to defend a position everyone assumes is built off the talking heads, knowwhati'msaying?

Another time, maybe.

Satoshi Kanazawa. Evolutionary psychologist cited in the CNN article at the start of this thread. I've read his article on why Liberals are smarter and more altruistic than Conservatives on psychology.com awhile back.

He also got in some trouble for questioning why black women are less physically attractive than other women.

And by "a bit of trouble", I mean liberal sites ganged up on him.

But they clearly overreacted, right? This is objectively no different than the intent of this thread.

Right?

Originally posted by cdtm
Satoshi Kanazawa. Evolutionary psychologist cited in the CNN article at the start of this thread. I've read his article on why Liberals are smarter and more altruistic than Conservatives on psychology.com awhile back.

He also got in some trouble for questioning why black women are less physically attractive than other women.

And by "a bit of trouble", I mean liberal sites ganged up on him.

But they clearly overreacted, right? This is objectively no different than the intent of this thread.

Right?

I've read about Satoshi as well. The important question to ask is..was there any actual scientific basis for what he was saying?

If there was, then were people upset at what he said or were they upset he told the truth?

Here's one difference, the Democratic Party just announced their support for Keith Ellison of Minn, to become the new DNC chair. He has past ties to the Nation of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood..

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/levin-why-isnt-this-national-news#sthash.8r8dzEe7.dpuf

Originally posted by kevdude
Here's one difference, the Democratic Party just announced their support for Keith Ellison of Minn, to become the new DNC chair. He has past ties to the Nation of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood..

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/levin-why-isnt-this-national-news#sthash.8r8dzEe7.dpuf

Lol well damn, and yeah I also wonder why this hasn't been in the news more.

I guarantee you some people will just try to attack the website the article appears on. Assuming people comment on it at all.

Originally posted by kevdude
Here's one difference, the Democratic Party just announced their support for Keith Ellison of Minn, to become the new DNC chair. He has past ties to the Nation of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood..

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/levin-why-isnt-this-national-news#sthash.8r8dzEe7.dpuf

"During Ellison's 2006 campaign, Minnesota Republican operatives raised questions about the articles and his involvement with the Nation of Islam. In response, Ellison wrote a letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota & the Dakotas saying he had never been a member, and that his connections with the Nation of Islam were limited to an 18-month period during which he helped organize the Minnesota contingent at the 1995 Million Man March. In Ellison's letter, he denounced the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan, writing "I wrongly dismissed concerns that they were anti-Semitic. They were and are anti-Semitic and I should have come to that conclusion earlier than I did." He explained his previous views, saying that he "did not adequately scrutinize the positions and statements of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed." He also stated, "any kind of discrimination and hate are wrong. This has always been my position". During the 2006 campaign, many prominent Jewish DFL activists supported Ellison, including fundraisers Samuel and Sylvia Kaplan, and State Representative Phyllis Kahn, who said it was "inconceivable that he could have ever been an anti-Semite.""

Here's the credible source
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000951.html

Here is a question: is anyone here a true liberal/conservative? By this I mean you agree with either side 100% on every issue out there.

Another reason children are horrible little beings.

Originally posted by Surtur
Here is a question: is anyone here a true liberal/conservative? By this I mean you agree with either side 100% on every issue out there.

I'm sure there are a very few that rarely post. I rarely post, although I do lurk a lot. I'm a very pro-firearms, pro-choice, and divided when it comes to immigration. That's obviously just a few of my many opinions on U.S. policies. I'd say I'm 60-40 conservative-liberal. It's not so cut and dry with a lot of voters.

I think Ellimist is trying to bridge some gaps and create more discussion, rather then blasting the "other side". If that's the case, I'm glad. We need more of it.

Originally posted by meep-meep

I like the topic though. I'm glad this is more for discussion and not to blast the "other side".

I thought the same thing until I read the Op and realized he was basically calling Conservative's "stupid" (Doesn't help he's called Trump supporters "white trash" in other posts..)

But yeah, the replies are interesting.

Originally posted by cdtm
I thought the same thing until I read the Op and realized he was basically calling Conservative's "stupid" (Doesn't help he's called Trump supporters "white trash" in other posts..)

But yeah, the replies are interesting.

Yeah. That's crappy. I edited my post. If heard some well articulated points from both sides. While well said, there's still a lot of "we won, get over it", and "liberals are clueless", final points to otherwise good points.

Originally posted by cdtm
I thought the same thing until I read the Op and realized he was basically calling Conservative's "stupid" (Doesn't help he's called Trump supporters "white trash" in other posts..)

But yeah, the replies are interesting.

Yes, this entire topic was just a thinly veiled insult.

On the bright side it's hilarious too though.

Damn these college kids are smart.

UvnrBOKH9gs

They are probably all liberals, only libs could be this well informed.