The newest Republican argument:

"Only a terrorist government would object to our illegally trying to overthrow it'

Americans, if you want your nation to be safe DO NOT vote Republican until after Trump is dead and the party has been thoroughly cleansed of its immorality and treasonous intent.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

WalksWith · 56-60, F

I read a study about the conservative mind v the Liberal mind. Conservatives make decisions based on emotion, with fear being the #1 motivator. And they are loyal to whomever they feel is going to 'protect' them. No matter if that person is harmful to others or not. For instance. The BULLY factor. They see a bully as strong and a protector. They don't see the bully as, well, a bully. Because the more 'followers' the bully has, the more the bully bullies, which attracts loyalty and devotion from their followers. And around and around they go. And the conservative mind is unchanging. To get them to change their minds is an act of strength. They are the ones who will do as a religion tells them to.

So, I think, the 'leaders', and certain News outlets, know this, and perpetuate fear. Notice the common talking points with the latest reports. ie; A former president's house was searched by the FBI. Now the pundits and 'news' casters, and even members of the republican party, have come out with the same 'talking points'. "if they can do this to a former president, they will do it to you". They don't take into consideration that the former president as committed atrocious acts against the country which in and of itself is unprecedented, they just see the person they are loyal to is being 'targeted'. However, to a rational mind, liberals, they see the manipulation tactics, and try to warn the followers, but because they have been manipulated emotionally for generations, they no longer trust anybody who goes against the person they are loyal too.

The Liberal mind is forward thinking, progressive, and scientific. However liberals, tend to constantly expect change, to where it gets them into trouble at times. Think of the die hard supporters of Jill Stein, and Ralph Nader. They will literally burn down the country if they don't get what they want and side with the opposition in retaliation. You cannot manipulate a liberal mind, because they basically ask too many questions and cast doubt on those who manipulate them. But give them a cause, ie; save the whales, donate to children in need, climate change, liberals are not stuck with an unchanging mind, but will exhaust themselves out trying to save the world.

So, I think, that is why 'grassroots' are successful with liberals. And the leaders of that party know that and promote grassroots ideals.

Then there are the Independents. I just started reading about independents. and basically they are the 'fence sitters', not that that is a bad thing, they are loyal to no one, they can change their minds, but if you pressure them they will turn against those who are pressuring them too. They have their causes, but it's limited, and they can be both scientific and religious, and they will often side with the conservatives based on their religious/scientific beliefs, but that's all I've read so far on them.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@WalksWith I think the theory reads well, but, stereotyping is really not helpful, since many times people are hybrids. I feel that I am a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.

WalksWith · 56-60, F

@samueltyler2

I agree, I don't like grouping everybody together like that either, for me, though reading this study has helped me understand some of what and why this is happening politically. In my house hold, I am very much fiscally conservative too. I limit what money can be spent and what gets put in savings. I also am very much a social and political liberal, and more so since 2016. In doing group studies, you have to group them, then work on individual personalities. I'm sure the rest of the study will get into that. I've only just started reading/researching this theory. 😁

Baremine · 70-79, C

@WalksWith you forgot that liberals have absolutely no common sense. Ralph Nader who you mentioned knew absolutely nothing about the things he was against.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@Baremine and you know that because? Nader did more for consumer safety than anyone else I can think of.

BigGuy2 · 26-30, M

@WalksWith Liberals are 'forward thinking' 🤔 why is it then that EVERYTHING boils down to racism with them !!!...

{..."i'm losing the argument, so i'll call the person winning the the argument a racist, that way i can shut that person down due them being embarrassed in being called, or them not wanting to be seen as a racist" ...}

... you people are so full of SH*T, i'm surprised the SH*T is not squirting out of your ears, or may be it is squirting out, hence why you all keep escaping from the basement

Oops sorry, it's not racism anymore is it, it's 'White Supremacy' now because you can't find any 'systemic' racism

Baremine · 70-79, C

@samueltyler2 that in itself is debatable. The Corvair was a prime example of Nader being an idiot. When converted to a mid engine car and a little suspension changes it was a great car.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@Baremine The car as sold was dangerous! That is all he tried to show, very successfully. He was very important in the development of overall automobile safety!

Baremine · 70-79, C

@samueltyler2 we own three of them in the family. Never found anything dangerous about them. Nader brought a lot of crap and extra expense to the auto industry. Each individual car has it's own personality and a good driver with get to know his car. Half the people on the road don't know their car and as a result are dangerous drivers. Nader contributed to nobody being responsible for their own actions. Just like self driving cars and worse yet big rigs is a horrible idea. You cannot trust a computer. Nader is just one nosey post that cost the consumer a lot of hard earned money.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@Baremine Having been involved with automotive safety since the mid 1960s, i respectfully have to mostly disagree with you. Technology has enable car makers to significantly impact on the survivability from a crash. Certainly, if a driver is reckless, they will be in a wreck. But, seat belts and airbags have made it much more likely they will survive.

Baremine · 70-79, C

@samueltyler2 and airbags have caused a lot of injuries. Part of the problem is airbags we're never designed to be used with a seatbelt. And the seatbelts factory installed aren't the best and can cause injuries. They certainly are not as good as the five point shoulder harness used in race cares and jet fighters.. so as usual they are more of a feel good fix.

WalksWith · 56-60, F

@BigGuy2

Oh really?

Liberals gave you:

1. 8 hr. workday
2. Minium wage
3.Weekends
4. Overtime pay
5.Womens right to vote
6.Unemployment insurance
7.Pell Grants
8.Civil Rights Act
9.Voting Rights act
10.Social Security
11.Medicare
12.The Veterans Administration VA
13 Child Labor laws
14. Universal Public Schools
15.Clean Water
16. Clean air

There are many more substantial Improvements that Liberals have given for the betterment of the people.

You don't want to be called a "Racist" Don't be racist.

Have a Nice Day!!!

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@Baremine wow, you are totally misinformed. Airbags we're always designed to be deployed along with seatbelts as restraining devices. Have you ever read the data on seat belt injuries verses injuries when the occupant is ejected? Spend a weekend on an ER and I dge for yourself who is more damaged! I guess you are so angry at whatever the government requires that you are blind to facts!

Baremine · 70-79, C

@samueltyler2 back in the 50's seat belts were discussed in "my weekly reader" a paper for grade schools. No mention of seat belts and what aftermarket seat belts were available were one belt to hold three people across the seat. And yes I don't think seat belts should be a law. Everyone screams Choice but I don't have one.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@Baremine You have the right to decide not to use a seat belt, but you are being very foolish. If you look at the High Safety Commission Data, the vast majority of deaths now occurring on the highway involve ejected passengers. With few exceptions, you are far better off being retained within the vehicle.

Baremine · 70-79, C

@samueltyler2 I do wear my seat belt. The 5 point harness is much superior to the belts the gov requires. If I remove the belts they require and install the 5 point I can and will be fined. Common sense tells me the seat belt is a good idea. The government overreach by telling me I have to wear one or be fined is wrong. Just like a motorcycle helmet. They are great. I wear a full face helmet. Those damn June bugs hurt at 70 mph. It just goes back to the argument of choice.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@Baremine where have you seen that if you change to 4 point restraints that you would get fined?

Baremine · 70-79, C

@samueltyler2 Oklahoma. A man changed factory belts to 5 point and was ticketed for tampering with factory belts. Pretty stupid but that's the government.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@Baremine when, where reported?

Baremine · 70-79, C

@samueltyler2 probably 15 years ago and I believe I heard it on the radio. Been awhile.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@Baremine that is very interesting, thanks for enlightening me. apparently, there are some DOT approved racing harnesses which are legal for street use. The authorities seem to suggest installing harnesses in addition to the seat belts that are OEM.