Page 1 of 17 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 254

Thread: Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals. Discuss.

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,412
    Thanks
    605
    Thanked 3,495 Times in 2,833 Posts
    Groans
    209
    Groaned 122 Times in 120 Posts

    Default Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals. Discuss.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/o...HOxDcN6zP17YZc

    Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals. Discuss.


    By Thomas B. Edsall

    Do liberals or conservatives experience higher levels of satisfaction, happiness or meaning in life? Is the left or the right more inclined to intolerance, bigotry or conspiratorial thinking? Are Democrats or Republicans more loyal to family and friends?

    A wide range of scholars in a variety of disciplines are asking these questions and taking them seriously. Ultimately, though, this line of inquiry raises an even broader question: whether liberals and conservatives function on fundamentally different moral planes.

    Two similarly titled papers with markedly disparate conclusions illustrate the range of disagreement on this subject. “Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?” by Jaime Napier of N.Y.U. in Abu Dhabi and John Jost of N.Y.U., and “Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals, but Why?” by Barry R. Schlenker and John Chambers, both of the University of Florida, and Bonnie Le of the University of Rochester.

    Using nationally representative samples from the United States and nine other countries, Napier and Jost note that theyconsistently found conservatives (or right-wingers) are happier than liberals (or left-wingers). This ideological gap in happiness is not accounted for by demographic differences or by differences in cognitive style. We did find, however, that the rationalization of inequality — a core component of conservative ideology — helps to explain why conservatives are, on average, happier than liberals.

    Napier and Jost contend that their determinations are “consistent with system justification theory, which posits that viewing the status quo (with its attendant degree of inequality) as fair and legitimate serves a palliative function.”

    One of Napier and Jost’s studies “suggests that conservatism provides an emotional buffer against the negative hedonic impact of inequality in society.”
    In addition, they argue that rising levels of inequality have “exacerbated the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives, apparently because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer.”

    A very different view of conservatives and the political right emerges in Schlenker, Chambers and Le’s paper:
    Conservatives score higher than liberals on personality and attitude measures that are traditionally associated with positive adjustment and mental health, including personal agency, positive outlook, transcendent moral beliefs, and generalized belief in fairness. These constructs, in turn, can account for why conservatives are happier than liberals and have declined less in happiness in recent decades.

    In contrast to Napier and Jost’s “view that conservatives are generally fearful, low in self-esteem, and rationalize away social inequality,” Schlenker, Chambers and Le argue:Conservatives are more satisfied with their lives, in general and in specific domains (e.g., marriage, job, residence), report better mental health and fewer mental and emotional problems, and view social justice in ways that are consistent with binding moral foundations, such as by emphasizing personal agency and equity.

    Liberals, Schlenker and his co-authors agree,have become less happy over the last several decades, but this decline is associated with increasingly secular attitudes and actions (e.g., less religiosity, less likelihood of being married, and perhaps lessened belief in personal agency).

    They go on:Conservatives generally score higher on internal control as well as the Protestant Work Ethic, which emphasizes the inherent meaningfulness and value of work and the strong linkage between one’s efforts and outcomes, and is positively associated with achievement. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to see outcomes as due to factors beyond one’s personal control, including luck and properties of the social system.

    These differences have consequences:Perceptions of internal control, self-efficacy, and the engagement in meaningful work are strongly related to life satisfaction. These differences in personal agency could, in and of themselves, explain much of the happiness gap.

    So too, in their view, does the liberal inclination to view morality in relative, as opposed to absolutist, terms, have consequences:A relativist moral code more readily permits people to excuse or justify failures to do the ‘‘right’’ thing. When moral codes lack clarity and promote flexibility, people may come to feel a sense of normlessness — a lack of purpose in life — and alienation. Further, if people believe there are acceptable excuses and justifications for morally questionable acts, they are more likely to engage in those acts, which in turn can create problems and unhappiness.
    Perhaps most significant, Schlenker, Chambers and Le found that while both liberals and conservatives place a high value on fairness, they have diverging definitions of the concept:

    Liberals define fairness more in terms of equality (equal outcomes regardless of contributions) and turn to government as the vehicle for enforcing social justice and helping those in need. Conservatives define fairness more in terms of equity (outcomes should be proportional to contributions), rely on free markets to distribute outcomes, and prefer individuals and private organizations, not government, to contribute to the care and protection of those in need.

    In “A Neurology of the Conservative-Liberal Dimension of Political Ideology,” Dr. Mario F. Mendez, a professor of neurology at U.C.L.A., argues:High political conservatism is associated with preferences for stability, conformity, tradition, and order and structure. High political liberalism, in contrast, is associated with preferences for creativity, curiosity, novelty-seeking, and new experiences. Highly politically conservative people eschew ambiguity and disorganization and prefer closure and limited shades of gray (“hard categorizers”). Highly politically liberal people tolerate ambiguity and disorganization and favor flexibility and taking on cognitive conflicts.
    When comparing conservatives with liberals, Mendez continues, “investigators report greater disgust sensitivity, especially for contamination disgust and violations of the sense of purity.”
    “Inducing disgust,” Mendez adds, “can heighten the sense of moral violations and shift moral judgments to the conservative side.”

    Political conservatism, he writes, isspecifically correlated with negativity bias in remembering more negative than positive information or scenes. In addition to negativity bias, high conservatism is associated with a sense of threat or a perception of danger. Those with politically conservative versus politically liberal views perceive ambiguous faces as more threatening, respond to threatening stimuli with more aggression, and have greater blink startle responses and skin conduction responses to unexpected or potentially threatening images.

    The debate over happiness touches on a host of subjects relevant to politics, including the almost universal goal of finding meaning in life.

    A 2018 paper, “Conservatives Report Greater Meaning in Life Than Liberals,” by David B. Newman of the University of California-San Francisco, Norbert Schwarz and Arthur Stone of the University of Southern California, and Jesse Graham of the University of Utah, contends that across five studiesconservatives reported more meaning and purpose in life than liberals at each reporting period. This finding remained significant after adjusting for religiosity and was usually stronger than the relationships involving other well-being measures.

    In an email, Newman provided some explanation: “Conservatism on social issues (e.g., abortion and same-sex marriage) was a stronger predictor of meaning in life, whereas conservatism on economic issues (e.g., free markets) was a stronger predictor of life satisfaction.”

    A reason for this, Newman continued, is thatone of the key ingredients to a meaningful life is a sense of coherence. If you can make sense of life’s events and if they seem to hang together in a consistent manner, you’ll find more meaning and purpose in life. Conservatives’ value for stability and their resistance to change could contribute to the coherence that provides them with meaning in life.

    Newman argued that since “family ties and a strong sense of community and connectedness are key ingredients for a meaningful life,” it is possible that “if liberal agendas and ideologies inhibit social bonds and connections, it could lower people’s sense of meaning and purpose.”

    It’s hardly surprising that there are scholars who disagree with the idea that conservatives experience a more satisfying sense of life’s meaning than liberals.

    In “Liberal and Conservative Political Ideologies: Different Routes to Happiness?” Becky Choma, Michael Busseri and Stanley Sadava argue that both strong liberals and strong conservatives achieve high levels of life satisfaction:The direction and magnitude of the predictive effects of political conservatism and liberalism on life satisfaction were identical. A strong liberal or conservative orientation is predictive of high life satisfaction. These findings converge on the possibility that life satisfaction is influenced by having a strongly held political ideological belief system to explain one’s world, irrespective of the specific orientation of that framework.

    Emma Onraet
    , Alain Van Hiel and Kristof Dhont concluded in their paper “The Relationship Between Right-Wing Ideological Attitudes and Psychological Well-Being” that a comprehensive examination — a meta-analysis — of previous studies involving 97 samples with 69,221 participants shows “that right-wing attitudes are only weakly related to psychological well-being” and that “our results thus do not support previous theories that claim that right-wing attitudes yield substantial relationships with psychological well-being.”

    The Onraet study did find, however, that “Among the elderly, adhering to right-wing attitudes is associated with higher levels of self-esteem, intrinsic goal pursuit and (a trend toward higher) life satisfaction.”
    Why? Onraet, Van Hiel and Dhont provide a speculative answer:Because the elderly focus on accepting their past life and integrating personal experiences and memories, they have a strong sense of being part of their culture and tradition and believe that it should be preserved in the future. As a result, right-wing attitudes seem to be comforting for older people and may, therefore, contribute to psychological well-being. Moreover, right-wing elderly might experience greater well-being because of their increased level of religiosity. Indeed, some studies revealed that religiosity mediates the relationship between conservatism and psychological well-being as religiosity becomes more important as a source of happiness and well-being in old age.

    Are conservatives or liberals more inclined to intolerance, prejudice and authoritarianism?Our study offers clear evidence that both political liberalism and conservatism predict intolerance of politically opposing targets and that such intolerance is explained by perceived threat from these targets.

    Jarret Crawford
    , a professor of psychology at the College of New Jersey and the lead author of “The Balanced Ideological Antipathy Model: Explaining the Effects of Ideological Attitudes on Inter-Group Antipathy Across the Political Spectrum,” observed in an email that prejudice and intolerance can be found on both sides of the aisle:The role of authoritarianism is a special type of political hostility we refer to as “political intolerance.” Political intolerance goes beyond simple dislike or negative emotions toward a group, and involves the belief that certain groups should be barred from access to political life. There is a core component of authoritarianism that is related to opposition to people’s political rights, regardless of whether those target people are on the political left or right.

    When it comes to denying political rights to specific groups, Crawford continued,we see pretty consistently that conservatives and liberals are intolerant of their political opponents (e.g., a liberal will oppose a pro-life group on campus to the same degree a conservative will oppose a pro-choice group on campus).

    But, Crawford stressed,where we do see pretty consistent ideological differences is in abstract democratic principles (endorsing things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, voting rights, etc.). I think this is to say that there is a stronger anti-democratic impulse on the right than on the left, less of a commitment to democracy. And, of course, I think we’re seeing that play out in national and local politics right now.

    Looking at these issues from a different angle, Michael Steger, a professor of psychology at Colorado State University, described in an email his views on meaning:What we feel confident in is that when people have a strong purpose that they care about and take steps to manifest, they say life is more meaningful and that they are happier, more helpful, and more resilient as well. We also see research showing that when people have important goals that they are blocked from achieving, they suffer more than if they have trivial goals they do not care so much about.

    Because of this, Steger continued,it seems very likely that to the extent that liberals have personalized equality, equity, fairness, environmental stewardship, or other issues associated with liberalism, the more susceptible they are to distress as progress toward the satisfaction of those goals is blocked. The same general idea would pertain to conservatives who have personalized conservative political goals that are seen as blocked. So, one idea here is, the stronger the purpose the greater the benefit when you are making progress and the greater the anguish when you are not.

    In terms of subjective feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment, conservatism has some built-in advantages over liberalism, Steger argued:The higher level of meaning we see among conservatives is tied to ideas around certainty and consistency. This shows up somewhat convincingly in religious commitment, which is higher among conservatives and is related to more meaning in life.

    In terms of the search for meaning, Steger wrote,consistency is good. It helps us feel that we have made sense of our experience, which is a critical dimension of meaning in life. Having a worldview that works and never needs to change would be beneficial from the perspective of meaning in life.

    Conversely, for liberals, more open-mindedness and less certainty are more of a challenge because all the new information one encounters, and all the unanswerable questions one asks, must be integrated into our mental map. Liberals appear to place higher value on being open-minded and questioning, as well as on being future-oriented. This can leave them vulnerable to uncertainty and to having less solidity at the core of their worldviews.
    Steger said that he has studied those engaged “in the search for meaning” as opposed to those who already have a strong sense of meaning. Generally, he writes,in the United States, searching for meaning is associated with more distress. Never truly knowing if you have the right answer to lives’ grandest questions. Conservatives, especially religiously committed people, score very low on “search for meaning,” implying that they have their meaning and do not need to look any further.

    What, then, can be drawn from these conflicting analyses?

    First, be wary of the conclusion that conservatives are happier than liberals and that they find greater meaning in life.

    In “Are Conservatives Really Happier Than Liberals?,” Tom Jacobs points out thatresearchers report that conservatives are more likely to proclaim they are happy. But liberals are more likely to provide clues indicating they’re experiencing actual joy, including the words they choose to use, and the genuineness of their smiles.

    Jacobs cites the work of Sean Wojcik, a senior data scientist at Axios, and Peter Ditto of the University of California, Irvine, who find in their paper “Conservative Self-Enhancement” that political conservatives have “a strengthened tendency to evaluate the self in an overly positive way.”

    Based on that research, Wojcik, Ditto and four colleagues argue in “Conservatives Report, but Liberals Display, Greater Happiness” that “research suggesting that political conservatives are happier than political liberals is fully mediated by conservatives’ self-enhancing style of self-report.”

    Using what they call “behavioral measures,” the authors found thatrelative to conservatives, liberals more frequently used positive emotional language in their speech and smiled more intensely and genuinely in photographs. Our results were consistent across large samples of online survey takers, U.S. politicians, Twitter users, and Linked-In users.

    Perhaps the most thought-provoking statement on these issues comes from Viktor Frankl in “Man’s Search for Meaning,” published in 1946, a year after Frankl’s liberation from a concentration camp.
    Frankl contended that meaning in life comes through work, love and suffering, and that all these involve the subordination of self:Man is originally characterized by his “search for meaning” rather than his “search for himself.” The more he forgets himself — giving himself to a cause or another person — the more human he is. And the more he is immersed and absorbed in something or someone other than himself the more he really becomes himself.
    The implication favors liberals.

    Friedrich Hayek
    , the author of “The Road to Serfdom,” had his own perspective on the difference between liberals and conservatives:One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead.

    In “Why Liberalism Works,” Paul Starr, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton, puts the case for contemporary liberalism this way (and I am going to give him the last word):Historically, liberalism has been defined by a shared, albeit evolving, body of political principles rather than by agreement on the ultimate grounds on which those principles rest. One of those shared political principles is an equal right to freedom, where freedom has been successively understood during the past three centuries in a more expansive way: first, as a right to civil liberty and freedom from arbitrary power; then, as a right to political liberty and a share in the government; and finally, as a right to basic requirements of human development and security necessary to assure equal opportunity and personal dignity.
    Last edited by Flash; 10-20-2021 at 08:35 PM.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    5,774
    Thanks
    838
    Thanked 1,716 Times in 1,277 Posts
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 294 Times in 277 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=Flash;4736264]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/o...HOxDcN6zP17YZc

    Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals. Discuss.


    By Thomas B. Edsall

    Do liberals or conservatives experience higher levels of satisfaction, happiness or meaning in life? Is the left or the right more inclined to intolerance, bigotry or conspiratorial thinking? Are Democrats or Republicans more loyal to family and friends?

    A wide range of scholars in a variety of disciplines are asking these questions and taking them seriously. Ultimately, though, this line of inquiry raises an even broader question: whether liberals and conservatives function on fundamentally different moral planes.

    Two similarly titled papers with markedly disparate conclusions illustrate the range of disagreement on this subject. “Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?” by Jaime Napier of N.Y.U. in Abu Dhabi and John Jost of N.Y.U., and “Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals, but Why?” by Barry R. Schlenker and John Chambers, both of the University of Florida, and Bonnie Le of the University of Rochester.

    Using nationally representative samples from the United States and nine other countries, Napier and Jost note that theyconsistently found conservatives (or right-wingers) are happier than liberals (or left-wingers). This ideological gap in happiness is not accounted for by demographic differences or by differences in cognitive style. We did find, however, that the rationalization of inequality — a core component of conservative ideology — helps to explain why conservatives are, on average, happier than liberals.

    Napier and Jost contend that their determinations are “consistent with system justification theory, which posits that viewing the status quo (with its attendant degree of inequality) as fair and legitimate serves a palliative function.”

    One of Napier and Jost’s studies “suggests that conservatism provides an emotional buffer against the negative hedonic impact of inequality in society.”
    In addition, they argue that rising levels of inequality have “exacerbated the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives, apparently because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer.”

    A very different view of conservatives and the political right emerges in Schlenker, Chambers and Le’s paper:
    Conservatives score higher than liberals on personality and attitude measures that are traditionally associated with positive adjustment and mental health, including personal agency, positive outlook, transcendent moral beliefs, and generalized belief in fairness. These constructs, in turn, can account for why conservatives are happier than liberals and have declined less in happiness in recent decades.

    In contrast to Napier and Jost’s “view that conservatives are generally fearful, low in self-esteem, and rationalize away social inequality,” Schlenker, Chambers and Le argue:Conservatives are more satisfied with their lives, in general and in specific domains (e.g., marriage, job, residence), report better mental health and fewer mental and emotional problems, and view social justice in ways that are consistent with binding moral foundations, such as by emphasizing personal agency and equity.

    Liberals, Schlenker and his co-authors agree,have become less happy over the last several decades, but this decline is associated with increasingly secular attitudes and actions (e.g., less religiosity, less likelihood of being married, and perhaps lessened belief in personal agency).

    They go on:Conservatives generally score higher on internal control as well as the Protestant Work Ethic, which emphasizes the inherent meaningfulness and value of work and the strong linkage between one’s efforts and outcomes, and is positively associated with achievement. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to see outcomes as due to factors beyond one’s personal control, including luck and properties of the social system.

    These differences have consequences:Perceptions of internal control, self-efficacy, and the engagement in meaningful work are strongly related to life satisfaction. These differences in personal agency could, in and of themselves, explain much of the happiness gap.

    So too, in their view, does the liberal inclination to view morality in relative, as opposed to absolutist, terms, have consequences:A relativist moral code more readily permits people to excuse or justify failures to do the ‘‘right’’ thing. When moral codes lack clarity and promote flexibility, people may come to feel a sense of normlessness — a lack of purpose in life — and alienation. Further, if people believe there are acceptable excuses and justifications for morally questionable acts, they are more likely to engage in those acts, which in turn can create problems and unhappiness.
    Perhaps most significant, Schlenker, Chambers and Le found that while both liberals and conservatives place a high value on fairness, they have diverging definitions of the concept:

    Liberals define fairness more in terms of equality (equal outcomes regardless of contributions) and turn to government as the vehicle for enforcing social justice and helping those in need. Conservatives define fairness more in terms of equity (outcomes should be proportional to contributions), rely on free markets to distribute outcomes, and prefer individuals and private organizations, not government, to contribute to the care and protection of those in need.

    In “A Neurology of the Conservative-Liberal Dimension of Political Ideology,” Dr. Mario F. Mendez, a professor of neurology at U.C.L.A., argues:High political conservatism is associated with preferences for stability, conformity, tradition, and order and structure. High political liberalism, in contrast, is associated with preferences for creativity, curiosity, novelty-seeking, and new experiences. Highly politically conservative people eschew ambiguity and disorganization and prefer closure and limited shades of gray (“hard categorizers”). Highly politically liberal people tolerate ambiguity and disorganization and favor flexibility and taking on cognitive conflicts.
    When comparing conservatives with liberals, Mendez continues, “investigators report greater disgust sensitivity, especially for contamination disgust and violations of the sense of purity.”
    “Inducing disgust,” Mendez adds, “can heighten the sense of moral violations and shift moral judgments to the conservative side.”

    Political conservatism, he writes, isspecifically correlated with negativity bias in remembering more negative than positive information or scenes. In addition to negativity bias, high conservatism is associated with a sense of threat or a perception of danger. Those with politically conservative versus politically liberal views perceive ambiguous faces as more threatening, respond to threatening stimuli with more aggression, and have greater blink startle responses and skin conduction responses to unexpected or potentially threatening images.

    The debate over happiness touches on a host of subjects relevant to politics, including the almost universal goal of finding meaning in life.

    A 2018 paper, “Conservatives Report Greater Meaning in Life Than Liberals,” by David B. Newman of the University of California-San Francisco, Norbert Schwarz and Arthur Stone of the University of Southern California, and Jesse Graham of the University of Utah, contends that across five studiesconservatives reported more meaning and purpose in life than liberals at each reporting period. This finding remained significant after adjusting for religiosity and was usually stronger than the relationships involving other well-being measures.

    In an email, Newman provided some explanation: “Conservatism on social issues (e.g., abortion and same-sex marriage) was a stronger predictor of meaning in life, whereas conservatism on economic issues (e.g., free markets) was a stronger predictor of life satisfaction.”

    A reason for this, Newman continued, is thatone of the key ingredients to a meaningful life is a sense of coherence. If you can make sense of life’s events and if they seem to hang together in a consistent manner, you’ll find more meaning and purpose in life. Conservatives’ value for stability and their resistance to change could contribute to the coherence that provides them with meaning in life.

    Newman argued that since “family ties and a strong sense of community and connectedness are key ingredients for a meaningful life,” it is possible that “if liberal agendas and ideologies inhibit social bonds and connections, it could lower people’s sense of meaning and purpose.”

    It’s hardly surprising that there are scholars who disagree with the idea that conservatives experience a more satisfying sense of life’s meaning than liberals.

    In “Liberal and Conservative Political Ideologies: Different Routes to Happiness?” Becky Choma, Michael Busseri and Stanley Sadava argue that both strong liberals and strong conservatives achieve high levels of life satisfaction:The direction and magnitude of the predictive effects of political conservatism and liberalism on life satisfaction were identical. A strong liberal or conservative orientation is predictive of high life satisfaction. These findings converge on the possibility that life satisfaction is influenced by having a strongly held political ideological belief system to explain one’s world, irrespective of the specific orientation of that framework.

    Emma Onraet
    , Alain Van Hiel and Kristof Dhont concluded in their paper “The Relationship Between Right-Wing Ideological Attitudes and Psychological Well-Being” that a comprehensive examination — a meta-analysis — of previous studies involving 97 samples with 69,221 participants shows “that right-wing attitudes are only weakly related to psychological well-being” and that “our results thus do not support previous theories that claim that right-wing attitudes yield substantial relationships with psychological well-being.”

    The Onraet study did find, however, that “Among the elderly, adhering to right-wing attitudes is associated with higher levels of self-esteem, intrinsic goal pursuit and (a trend toward higher) life satisfaction.”
    Why? Onraet, Van Hiel and Dhont provide a speculative answer:Because the elderly focus on accepting their past life and integrating personal experiences and memories, they have a strong sense of being part of their culture and tradition and believe that it should be preserved in the future. As a result, right-wing attitudes seem to be comforting for older people and may, therefore, contribute to psychological well-being. Moreover, right-wing elderly might experience greater well-being because of their increased level of religiosity. Indeed, some studies revealed that religiosity mediates the relationship between conservatism and psychological well-being as religiosity becomes more important as a source of happiness and well-being in old age.

    Are conservatives or liberals more inclined to intolerance, prejudice and authoritarianism?Our study offers clear evidence that both political liberalism and conservatism predict intolerance of politically opposing targets and that such intolerance is explained by perceived threat from these targets.

    Jarret Crawford
    , a professor of psychology at the College of New Jersey and the lead author of “The Balanced Ideological Antipathy Model: Explaining the Effects of Ideological Attitudes on Inter-Group Antipathy Across the Political Spectrum,” observed in an email that prejudice and intolerance can be found on both sides of the aisle:The role of authoritarianism is a special type of political hostility we refer to as “political intolerance.” Political intolerance goes beyond simple dislike or negative emotions toward a group, and involves the belief that certain groups should be barred from access to political life. There is a core component of authoritarianism that is related to opposition to people’s political rights, regardless of whether those target people are on the political left or right.

    When it comes to denying political rights to specific groups, Crawford continued,we see pretty consistently that conservatives and liberals are intolerant of their political opponents (e.g., a liberal will oppose a pro-life group on campus to the same degree a conservative will oppose a pro-choice group on campus).

    But, Crawford stressed,where we do see pretty consistent ideological differences is in abstract democratic principles (endorsing things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, voting rights, etc.). I think this is to say that there is a stronger anti-democratic impulse on the right than on the left, less of a commitment to democracy. And, of course, I think we’re seeing that play out in national and local politics right now.

    Looking at these issues from a different angle, Michael Steger, a professor of psychology at Colorado State University, described in an email his views on meaning:What we feel confident in is that when people have a strong purpose that they care about and take steps to manifest, they say life is more meaningful and that they are happier, more helpful, and more resilient as well. We also see research showing that when people have important goals that they are blocked from achieving, they suffer more than if they have trivial goals they do not care so much about.

    Because of this, Steger continued,it seems very likely that to the extent that liberals have personalized equality, equity, fairness, environmental stewardship, or other issues associated with liberalism, the more susceptible they are to distress as progress toward the satisfaction of those goals is blocked. The same general idea would pertain to conservatives who have personalized conservative political goals that are seen as blocked. So, one idea here is, the stronger the purpose the greater the benefit when you are making progress and the greater the anguish when you are not.

    In terms of subjective feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment, conservatism has some built-in advantages over liberalism, Steger argued:The higher level of meaning we see among conservatives is tied to ideas around certainty and consistency. This shows up somewhat convincingly in religious commitment, which is higher among conservatives and is related to more meaning in life.

    In terms of the search for meaning, Steger wrote,consistency is good. It helps us feel that we have made sense of our experience, which is a critical dimension of meaning in life. Having a worldview that works and never needs to change would be beneficial from the perspective of meaning in life.

    Conversely, for liberals, more open-mindedness and less certainty are more of a challenge because all the new information one encounters, and all the unanswerable questions one asks, must be integrated into our mental map. Liberals appear to place higher value on being open-minded and questioning, as well as on being future-oriented. This can leave them vulnerable to uncertainty and to having less solidity at the core of their worldviews.
    Steger said that he has studied those engaged “in the search for meaning” as opposed to those who already have a strong sense of meaning. Generally, he writes,in the United States, searching for meaning is associated with more distress. Never truly knowing if you have the right answer to lives’ grandest questions. Conservatives, especially religiously committed people, score very low on “search for meaning,” implying that they have their meaning and do not need to look any further.

    What, then, can be drawn from these conflicting analyses?

    First, be wary of the conclusion that conservatives are happier than liberals and that they find greater meaning in life.

    In “Are Conservatives Really Happier Than Liberals?,” Tom Jacobs points out thatresearchers report that conservatives are more likely to proclaim they are happy. But liberals are more likely to provide clues indicating they’re experiencing actual joy, including the words they choose to use, and the genuineness of their smiles.

    Jacobs cites the work of Sean Wojcik, a senior data scientist at Axios, and Peter Ditto of the University of California, Irvine, who find in their paper “Conservative Self-Enhancement” that political conservatives have “a strengthened tendency to evaluate the self in an overly positive way.”

    Based on that research, Wojcik, Ditto and four colleagues argue in “Conservatives Report, but Liberals Display, Greater Happiness” that “research suggesting that political conservatives are happier than political liberals is fully mediated by conservatives’ self-enhancing style of self-report.”

    Using what they call “behavioral measures,” the authors found thatrelative to conservatives, liberals more frequently used positive emotional language in their speech and smiled more intensely and genuinely in photographs. Our results were consistent across large samples of online survey takers, U.S. politicians, Twitter users, and Linked-In users.

    Perhaps the most thought-provoking statement on these issues comes from Viktor Frankl in “Man’s Search for Meaning,” published in 1946, a year after Frankl’s liberation from a concentration camp.
    Frankl contended that meaning in life comes through work, love and suffering, and that all these involve the subordination of self:Man is originally characterized by his “search for meaning” rather than his “search for himself.” The more he forgets himself — giving himself to a cause or another person — the more human he is. And the more he is immersed and absorbed in something or someone other than himself the more he really becomes himself.
    The implication favors liberals.

    Friedrich Hayek
    , the author of “The Road to Serfdom,” had his own perspective on the difference between liberals and conservatives:One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead.

    In “Why Liberalism Works,” Paul Starr, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton, puts the case for contemporary liberalism this way (and I am going to give him the last word):Historically, liberalism has been defined by a shared, albeit evolving, body of political principles rather than by agreement on the ultimate grounds on which those principles rest. One of those shared political principles is an equal right to freedom, where freedom has been successively understood during the past three centuries in a more expansive way: first, as a right to civil liberty and freedom from arbitrary power; then, as a right to political liberty and a share in the government; and finally, as a right to basic requirements of human development and security necessary to assure equal opportunity and personal dignity."

    Utter bs and do you think the following is a reason for the Russian sold out and seditious CONservative and un Constitutional filibustering atrocity at war against Democracy and humanity is something to be happier about? Actually Democrats who have put forth their best efforts to serve the best interests of Democracy, humanity, the environment and the Constitutional rights of society should be the happiest as a result of these efforts and their soul too:

    The more Republicans bow to Trump’s lies, the more they destroy their party’s future
    Seventy percent of Republicans believe the lie that Trump won the presidential election. But that’s less than one-third — and shrinking — of the total electorate.

    There’s a word to describe political movements that emphasize ethnic, racial and religious solidarity over citizenship and pluralistic values, but it has unpleasant historical associations. Using it only causes political conversations to end in bitterness and name-calling.

    So let us simply observe that what’s going on in today’s Republican Party represents the seeming fulfillment of Vladimir Putin’s ambitions for the Trump presidency. Undermining confidence in elections has long been Job One in the Kremlin: discrediting democracy to promote strongman rule. But Putin’s too cynical to understand America.

    It matters not to him that the strongman in question is an incompetent blowhard, a clownish figure in elevator shoes. One of America’s two dominant political parties is in the process of losing its collective mind. Indeed, the very preposterousness of Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” about being cheated out of an election he lost by 7 million votes — claims rejected for lack of evidence in more than 60 courts of law — only enhances its allure for conspiratorial thinkers.

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,” Voltaire wrote. The harder Trump’s lies are to believe, the more fervently True Believers strive to affirm them. Longtime Republican strategist Sarah Longwell describes the MAGA faithful as “QAnon curious,” professing faith in “deep-state” mythology. “A lot of these base voters are living in a post-truth nihilism,” she told The New York Times, “where you believe in nothing and think that everything might be untrue.”

    To give you some idea, a GOP-sponsored election recount in Phoenix has been searching for traces of bamboo on 2 million ballots — based upon a rumor that votes were flown in from South Korea."

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...ics-gene-lyons

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to gemini104104 For This Post:

    Hoosier Daddy (10-21-2021)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    30,576
    Thanks
    4,861
    Thanked 16,185 Times in 12,161 Posts
    Groans
    126
    Groaned 324 Times in 311 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gemini104104 View Post

    By Thomas B. Edsall

    Do liberals or conservatives experience higher levels of satisfaction, happiness or meaning in life? Is the left or the right more inclined to intolerance, bigotry or conspiratorial thinking? Are Democrats or Republicans more loyal to family and friends?

    A wide range of scholars in a variety of disciplines are asking these questions and taking them seriously. Ultimately, though, this line of inquiry raises an even broader question: whether liberals and conservatives function on fundamentally different moral planes.

    Two similarly titled papers with markedly disparate conclusions illustrate the range of disagreement on this subject. “Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?” by Jaime Napier of N.Y.U. in Abu Dhabi and John Jost of N.Y.U., and “Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals, but Why?” by Barry R. Schlenker and John Chambers, both of the University of Florida, and Bonnie Le of the University of Rochester.

    Using nationally representative samples from the United States and nine other countries, Napier and Jost note that theyconsistently found conservatives (or right-wingers) are happier than liberals (or left-wingers). This ideological gap in happiness is not accounted for by demographic differences or by differences in cognitive style. We did find, however, that the rationalization of inequality — a core component of conservative ideology — helps to explain why conservatives are, on average, happier than liberals.

    Napier and Jost contend that their determinations are “consistent with system justification theory, which posits that viewing the status quo (with its attendant degree of inequality) as fair and legitimate serves a palliative function.”

    One of Napier and Jost’s studies “suggests that conservatism provides an emotional buffer against the negative hedonic impact of inequality in society.”
    In addition, they argue that rising levels of inequality have “exacerbated the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives, apparently because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer.”

    A very different view of conservatives and the political right emerges in Schlenker, Chambers and Le’s paper:
    Conservatives score higher than liberals on personality and attitude measures that are traditionally associated with positive adjustment and mental health, including personal agency, positive outlook, transcendent moral beliefs, and generalized belief in fairness. These constructs, in turn, can account for why conservatives are happier than liberals and have declined less in happiness in recent decades.

    In contrast to Napier and Jost’s “view that conservatives are generally fearful, low in self-esteem, and rationalize away social inequality,” Schlenker, Chambers and Le argue:Conservatives are more satisfied with their lives, in general and in specific domains (e.g., marriage, job, residence), report better mental health and fewer mental and emotional problems, and view social justice in ways that are consistent with binding moral foundations, such as by emphasizing personal agency and equity.

    Liberals, Schlenker and his co-authors agree,have become less happy over the last several decades, but this decline is associated with increasingly secular attitudes and actions (e.g., less religiosity, less likelihood of being married, and perhaps lessened belief in personal agency).

    They go on:Conservatives generally score higher on internal control as well as the Protestant Work Ethic, which emphasizes the inherent meaningfulness and value of work and the strong linkage between one’s efforts and outcomes, and is positively associated with achievement. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to see outcomes as due to factors beyond one’s personal control, including luck and properties of the social system.

    These differences have consequences:Perceptions of internal control, self-efficacy, and the engagement in meaningful work are strongly related to life satisfaction. These differences in personal agency could, in and of themselves, explain much of the happiness gap.

    So too, in their view, does the liberal inclination to view morality in relative, as opposed to absolutist, terms, have consequences:A relativist moral code more readily permits people to excuse or justify failures to do the ‘‘right’’ thing. When moral codes lack clarity and promote flexibility, people may come to feel a sense of normlessness — a lack of purpose in life — and alienation. Further, if people believe there are acceptable excuses and justifications for morally questionable acts, they are more likely to engage in those acts, which in turn can create problems and unhappiness.
    Perhaps most significant, Schlenker, Chambers and Le found that while both liberals and conservatives place a high value on fairness, they have diverging definitions of the concept:

    Liberals define fairness more in terms of equality (equal outcomes regardless of contributions) and turn to government as the vehicle for enforcing social justice and helping those in need. Conservatives define fairness more in terms of equity (outcomes should be proportional to contributions), rely on free markets to distribute outcomes, and prefer individuals and private organizations, not government, to contribute to the care and protection of those in need.

    In “A Neurology of the Conservative-Liberal Dimension of Political Ideology,” Dr. Mario F. Mendez, a professor of neurology at U.C.L.A., argues:High political conservatism is associated with preferences for stability, conformity, tradition, and order and structure. High political liberalism, in contrast, is associated with preferences for creativity, curiosity, novelty-seeking, and new experiences. Highly politically conservative people eschew ambiguity and disorganization and prefer closure and limited shades of gray (“hard categorizers”). Highly politically liberal people tolerate ambiguity and disorganization and favor flexibility and taking on cognitive conflicts.
    When comparing conservatives with liberals, Mendez continues, “investigators report greater disgust sensitivity, especially for contamination disgust and violations of the sense of purity.”
    “Inducing disgust,” Mendez adds, “can heighten the sense of moral violations and shift moral judgments to the conservative side.”

    Political conservatism, he writes, isspecifically correlated with negativity bias in remembering more negative than positive information or scenes. In addition to negativity bias, high conservatism is associated with a sense of threat or a perception of danger. Those with politically conservative versus politically liberal views perceive ambiguous faces as more threatening, respond to threatening stimuli with more aggression, and have greater blink startle responses and skin conduction responses to unexpected or potentially threatening images.

    The debate over happiness touches on a host of subjects relevant to politics, including the almost universal goal of finding meaning in life.

    A 2018 paper, “Conservatives Report Greater Meaning in Life Than Liberals,” by David B. Newman of the University of California-San Francisco, Norbert Schwarz and Arthur Stone of the University of Southern California, and Jesse Graham of the University of Utah, contends that across five studiesconservatives reported more meaning and purpose in life than liberals at each reporting period. This finding remained significant after adjusting for religiosity and was usually stronger than the relationships involving other well-being measures.

    In an email, Newman provided some explanation: “Conservatism on social issues (e.g., abortion and same-sex marriage) was a stronger predictor of meaning in life, whereas conservatism on economic issues (e.g., free markets) was a stronger predictor of life satisfaction.”

    A reason for this, Newman continued, is thatone of the key ingredients to a meaningful life is a sense of coherence. If you can make sense of life’s events and if they seem to hang together in a consistent manner, you’ll find more meaning and purpose in life. Conservatives’ value for stability and their resistance to change could contribute to the coherence that provides them with meaning in life.

    Newman argued that since “family ties and a strong sense of community and connectedness are key ingredients for a meaningful life,” it is possible that “if liberal agendas and ideologies inhibit social bonds and connections, it could lower people’s sense of meaning and purpose.”

    It’s hardly surprising that there are scholars who disagree with the idea that conservatives experience a more satisfying sense of life’s meaning than liberals.

    In “Liberal and Conservative Political Ideologies: Different Routes to Happiness?” Becky Choma, Michael Busseri and Stanley Sadava argue that both strong liberals and strong conservatives achieve high levels of life satisfaction:The direction and magnitude of the predictive effects of political conservatism and liberalism on life satisfaction were identical. A strong liberal or conservative orientation is predictive of high life satisfaction. These findings converge on the possibility that life satisfaction is influenced by having a strongly held political ideological belief system to explain one’s world, irrespective of the specific orientation of that framework.

    Emma Onraet
    , Alain Van Hiel and Kristof Dhont concluded in their paper “The Relationship Between Right-Wing Ideological Attitudes and Psychological Well-Being” that a comprehensive examination — a meta-analysis — of previous studies involving 97 samples with 69,221 participants shows “that right-wing attitudes are only weakly related to psychological well-being” and that “our results thus do not support previous theories that claim that right-wing attitudes yield substantial relationships with psychological well-being.”

    The Onraet study did find, however, that “Among the elderly, adhering to right-wing attitudes is associated with higher levels of self-esteem, intrinsic goal pursuit and (a trend toward higher) life satisfaction.”
    Why? Onraet, Van Hiel and Dhont provide a speculative answer:Because the elderly focus on accepting their past life and integrating personal experiences and memories, they have a strong sense of being part of their culture and tradition and believe that it should be preserved in the future. As a result, right-wing attitudes seem to be comforting for older people and may, therefore, contribute to psychological well-being. Moreover, right-wing elderly might experience greater well-being because of their increased level of religiosity. Indeed, some studies revealed that religiosity mediates the relationship between conservatism and psychological well-being as religiosity becomes more important as a source of happiness and well-being in old age.

    Are conservatives or liberals more inclined to intolerance, prejudice and authoritarianism?Our study offers clear evidence that both political liberalism and conservatism predict intolerance of politically opposing targets and that such intolerance is explained by perceived threat from these targets.

    Jarret Crawford
    , a professor of psychology at the College of New Jersey and the lead author of “The Balanced Ideological Antipathy Model: Explaining the Effects of Ideological Attitudes on Inter-Group Antipathy Across the Political Spectrum,” observed in an email that prejudice and intolerance can be found on both sides of the aisle:The role of authoritarianism is a special type of political hostility we refer to as “political intolerance.” Political intolerance goes beyond simple dislike or negative emotions toward a group, and involves the belief that certain groups should be barred from access to political life. There is a core component of authoritarianism that is related to opposition to people’s political rights, regardless of whether those target people are on the political left or right.

    When it comes to denying political rights to specific groups, Crawford continued,we see pretty consistently that conservatives and liberals are intolerant of their political opponents (e.g., a liberal will oppose a pro-life group on campus to the same degree a conservative will oppose a pro-choice group on campus).

    But, Crawford stressed,where we do see pretty consistent ideological differences is in abstract democratic principles (endorsing things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, voting rights, etc.). I think this is to say that there is a stronger anti-democratic impulse on the right than on the left, less of a commitment to democracy. And, of course, I think we’re seeing that play out in national and local politics right now.

    Looking at these issues from a different angle, Michael Steger, a professor of psychology at Colorado State University, described in an email his views on meaning:What we feel confident in is that when people have a strong purpose that they care about and take steps to manifest, they say life is more meaningful and that they are happier, more helpful, and more resilient as well. We also see research showing that when people have important goals that they are blocked from achieving, they suffer more than if they have trivial goals they do not care so much about.

    Because of this, Steger continued,it seems very likely that to the extent that liberals have personalized equality, equity, fairness, environmental stewardship, or other issues associated with liberalism, the more susceptible they are to distress as progress toward the satisfaction of those goals is blocked. The same general idea would pertain to conservatives who have personalized conservative political goals that are seen as blocked. So, one idea here is, the stronger the purpose the greater the benefit when you are making progress and the greater the anguish when you are not.

    In terms of subjective feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment, conservatism has some built-in advantages over liberalism, Steger argued:The higher level of meaning we see among conservatives is tied to ideas around certainty and consistency. This shows up somewhat convincingly in religious commitment, which is higher among conservatives and is related to more meaning in life.

    In terms of the search for meaning, Steger wrote,consistency is good. It helps us feel that we have made sense of our experience, which is a critical dimension of meaning in life. Having a worldview that works and never needs to change would be beneficial from the perspective of meaning in life.

    Conversely, for liberals, more open-mindedness and less certainty are more of a challenge because all the new information one encounters, and all the unanswerable questions one asks, must be integrated into our mental map. Liberals appear to place higher value on being open-minded and questioning, as well as on being future-oriented. This can leave them vulnerable to uncertainty and to having less solidity at the core of their worldviews.
    Steger said that he has studied those engaged “in the search for meaning” as opposed to those who already have a strong sense of meaning. Generally, he writes,in the United States, searching for meaning is associated with more distress. Never truly knowing if you have the right answer to lives’ grandest questions. Conservatives, especially religiously committed people, score very low on “search for meaning,” implying that they have their meaning and do not need to look any further.

    What, then, can be drawn from these conflicting analyses?

    First, be wary of the conclusion that conservatives are happier than liberals and that they find greater meaning in life.

    In “Are Conservatives Really Happier Than Liberals?,” Tom Jacobs points out thatresearchers report that conservatives are more likely to proclaim they are happy. But liberals are more likely to provide clues indicating they’re experiencing actual joy, including the words they choose to use, and the genuineness of their smiles.

    Jacobs cites the work of Sean Wojcik, a senior data scientist at Axios, and Peter Ditto of the University of California, Irvine, who find in their paper “Conservative Self-Enhancement” that political conservatives have “a strengthened tendency to evaluate the self in an overly positive way.”

    Based on that research, Wojcik, Ditto and four colleagues argue in “Conservatives Report, but Liberals Display, Greater Happiness” that “research suggesting that political conservatives are happier than political liberals is fully mediated by conservatives’ self-enhancing style of self-report.”

    Using what they call “behavioral measures,” the authors found thatrelative to conservatives, liberals more frequently used positive emotional language in their speech and smiled more intensely and genuinely in photographs. Our results were consistent across large samples of online survey takers, U.S. politicians, Twitter users, and Linked-In users.

    Perhaps the most thought-provoking statement on these issues comes from Viktor Frankl in “Man’s Search for Meaning,” published in 1946, a year after Frankl’s liberation from a concentration camp.
    Frankl contended that meaning in life comes through work, love and suffering, and that all these involve the subordination of self:Man is originally characterized by his “search for meaning” rather than his “search for himself.” The more he forgets himself — giving himself to a cause or another person — the more human he is. And the more he is immersed and absorbed in something or someone other than himself the more he really becomes himself.
    The implication favors liberals.

    Friedrich Hayek
    , the author of “The Road to Serfdom,” had his own perspective on the difference between liberals and conservatives:One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead.

    In “Why Liberalism Works,” Paul Starr, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton, puts the case for contemporary liberalism this way (and I am going to give him the last word):Historically, liberalism has been defined by a shared, albeit evolving, body of political principles rather than by agreement on the ultimate grounds on which those principles rest. One of those shared political principles is an equal right to freedom, where freedom has been successively understood during the past three centuries in a more expansive way: first, as a right to civil liberty and freedom from arbitrary power; then, as a right to political liberty and a share in the government; and finally, as a right to basic requirements of human development and security necessary to assure equal opportunity and personal dignity."

    Utter bs and do you think the following is a reason for the Russian sold out and seditious CONservative and un Constitutional filibustering atrocity at war against Democracy and humanity is something to be happier about? Actually Democrats who have put forth their best efforts to serve the best interests of Democracy, humanity, the environment and the Constitutional rights of society should be the happiest as a result of these efforts and their soul too:

    The more Republicans bow to Trump’s lies, the more they destroy their party’s future
    Seventy percent of Republicans believe the lie that Trump won the presidential election. But that’s less than one-third — and shrinking — of the total electorate.

    There’s a word to describe political movements that emphasize ethnic, racial and religious solidarity over citizenship and pluralistic values, but it has unpleasant historical associations. Using it only causes political conversations to end in bitterness and name-calling.

    So let us simply observe that what’s going on in today’s Republican Party represents the seeming fulfillment of Vladimir Putin’s ambitions for the Trump presidency. Undermining confidence in elections has long been Job One in the Kremlin: discrediting democracy to promote strongman rule. But Putin’s too cynical to understand America.

    It matters not to him that the strongman in question is an incompetent blowhard, a clownish figure in elevator shoes. One of America’s two dominant political parties is in the process of losing its collective mind. Indeed, the very preposterousness of Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” about being cheated out of an election he lost by 7 million votes — claims rejected for lack of evidence in more than 60 courts of law — only enhances its allure for conspiratorial thinkers.

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,” Voltaire wrote. The harder Trump’s lies are to believe, the more fervently True Believers strive to affirm them. Longtime Republican strategist Sarah Longwell describes the MAGA faithful as “QAnon curious,” professing faith in “deep-state” mythology. “A lot of these base voters are living in a post-truth nihilism,” she told The New York Times, “where you believe in nothing and think that everything might be untrue.”

    To give you some idea, a GOP-sponsored election recount in Phoenix has been searching for traces of bamboo on 2 million ballots — based upon a rumor that votes were flown in from South Korea."

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...ics-gene-lyons
    Yep. You are unhappy...
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RB 60 For This Post:

    ExpressLane (10-21-2021), Truth Detector (10-21-2021)

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    9,646
    Thanks
    2,063
    Thanked 3,874 Times in 2,551 Posts
    Groans
    294
    Groaned 400 Times in 387 Posts

    Default

    I am being as honest as I can be, in all my life, it is my observation people who do not discriminate against minorities, are accepting of others gender and sexual identities, do not call a bunch of poor people walking towards our border an "invasion," and who could never vote for a sick ass piece of shit liar like trump are much happier than right wingers. how can you hate so many people and be happy?

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Hoosier Daddy For This Post:

    LV426 (10-21-2021)

  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    30,576
    Thanks
    4,861
    Thanked 16,185 Times in 12,161 Posts
    Groans
    126
    Groaned 324 Times in 311 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier Daddy View Post
    I am being as honest as I can be, in all my life, it is my observation people who do not discriminate against minorities, are accepting of others gender and sexual identities, do not call a bunch of poor people walking towards our border an "invasion," and who could never vote for a sick ass piece of shit liar like trump are much happier than right wingers. how can you hate so many people and be happy?
    TRUMP!


    TRUMP!






    TRUMP!






    TRUMP!
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RB 60 For This Post:

    ExpressLane (10-21-2021), Truth Detector (10-21-2021)

  10. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    9,646
    Thanks
    2,063
    Thanked 3,874 Times in 2,551 Posts
    Groans
    294
    Groaned 400 Times in 387 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RB 60 View Post
    TRUMP!


    TRUMP!






    TRUMP!






    TRUMP!
    the only way a hateful liar like trump could be elected is by enough hate-filled voters. facts matter. yeah, this guy is so joyful...


  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hoosier Daddy For This Post:

    guno (10-21-2021), ThatOwlWoman (10-21-2021)

  12. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    30,576
    Thanks
    4,861
    Thanked 16,185 Times in 12,161 Posts
    Groans
    126
    Groaned 324 Times in 311 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier Daddy View Post
    the only way a hateful liar like trump could be elected is by enough hate-filled voters. facts matter. yeah, this guy is so joyful...

    TRUMP!
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RB 60 For This Post:

    ExpressLane (10-21-2021), Truth Detector (10-21-2021)

  14. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    44,485
    Thanks
    11,176
    Thanked 12,012 Times in 8,944 Posts
    Groans
    44
    Groaned 4,686 Times in 4,010 Posts

    Default

    If conservatives are happier, it merely proves that ignorance is bliss.

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    AProudLefty (10-21-2021), Cinnabar (10-21-2021), guno (10-21-2021), ThatOwlWoman (10-21-2021)

  16. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    18,647
    Thanks
    3,700
    Thanked 5,497 Times in 4,386 Posts
    Groans
    616
    Groaned 219 Times in 207 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    I love my farts.
    Who doesn't?
    Why Trump? Because Fuck You that's why.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Guille For This Post:

    Truth Detector (10-21-2021)

  18. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    30,576
    Thanks
    4,861
    Thanked 16,185 Times in 12,161 Posts
    Groans
    126
    Groaned 324 Times in 311 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    If conservatives are happier, it merely proves that ignorance is bliss.
    Whatever. We're still happier. Wallow in your despair
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RB 60 For This Post:

    ExpressLane (10-21-2021), TOP (10-21-2021), Truth Detector (10-21-2021)

  20. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    44,485
    Thanks
    11,176
    Thanked 12,012 Times in 8,944 Posts
    Groans
    44
    Groaned 4,686 Times in 4,010 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RB 60 View Post
    Whatever. We're still happier. Wallow in your despair
    I’m happy as shit. Did you read otherwise in that piece of word salad?

  21. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    44,485
    Thanks
    11,176
    Thanked 12,012 Times in 8,944 Posts
    Groans
    44
    Groaned 4,686 Times in 4,010 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guille View Post
    Who doesn't?
    There must be a name for the type of schizophrenia where one replies to their own posts.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    Hoosier Daddy (10-21-2021)

  23. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    18,647
    Thanks
    3,700
    Thanked 5,497 Times in 4,386 Posts
    Groans
    616
    Groaned 219 Times in 207 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    There must be a name for the type of schizophrenia where one replies to their own posts.
    Uh...are you ok? Do you need assistance?
    Why Trump? Because Fuck You that's why.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Guille For This Post:

    ExpressLane (10-21-2021), Truth Detector (10-21-2021)

  25. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    30,576
    Thanks
    4,861
    Thanked 16,185 Times in 12,161 Posts
    Groans
    126
    Groaned 324 Times in 311 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    I’m happy as shit. Did you read otherwise in that piece of word salad?
    You don't act like it. No, it made no sense.
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RB 60 For This Post:

    ExpressLane (10-21-2021), Truth Detector (10-21-2021)

  27. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    44,485
    Thanks
    11,176
    Thanked 12,012 Times in 8,944 Posts
    Groans
    44
    Groaned 4,686 Times in 4,010 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guille View Post
    Uh...are you ok? Do you need assistance?
    Do you make it a habit of intentionally replying do your own posts? Or are you just too fucking stupid to realize you’re doing that?

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    Hoosier Daddy (10-21-2021)

Similar Threads

  1. Do conservatives discuss politics anymore?
    By BidenPresident in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 07-01-2021, 11:47 AM
  2. Conservatives healthier than liberals
    By Micawber in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-23-2020, 03:47 PM
  3. Conservatives more attractive than liberals
    By Evmetro in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-30-2018, 11:24 PM
  4. So who was right on the Iraq War? Liberals vs. Conservatives.
    By Amadeus in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 329
    Last Post: 10-28-2017, 06:49 PM
  5. Conservatives and Liberals unite!
    By Taichiliberal in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-07-2014, 08:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •