The Differences Between the Political Left and the Right
(Note: When politics is discussed here, we attempt to stay away from an attack mode, especially toward individuals, but civilly discuss principles instead.)
Reader Comment: The Left/Right Paradigm in America is two illusions chasing one another.
JJ: They both have their illusions but both are creators of reality with which we must deal.
Reader: If the Right was the side of the Mind, they would be generating thoughts and ideas, not blindly trying to stop the Left at every turn.
JJ: And the Left tries to stop the Right at least as much. That’s what they do because they both see reality through different filters.
The fact that they both oppose each other does not indicate whether they are polarized in the mind or emotion.
Real workable ideas come from the atmic plane and when they filter down, they may appeal to either the mentally or emotionally polarized depending on how it suits their purpose or desire.
When I spoke of the polarization of the Right, I am not referring to higher mind, but the “analytical mind.” 90% of the members of both sides are polarized in the emotional/astral body and very few are able to use the pure reason of the upper mental body.
Also remember the meaning of the word “polarization.” The fact that one is polarized in the emotions or analytical mind does not mean that is their total influence. It only means the influence dominates.
For instance, most females are polarized in their right brain or the emotions, but this does not mean they do not also use their left analytical brain when it suits them.
Reader: Case in point: immigration reform.
Few in Congress ever come up with original ideas but when ideas do filter down they may be embraced in some warped manner by either party.
JJ: On immigration the Republicans do take the more analytical approach. Most want the border secured before we liberalize immigration. The Democrats feel that they want to pass a bill legalizing the illegals now and all will work out okay. The Republicans definitely have the left-brain approach here.
The same goes for the application of the law where Republicans want current laws enforced and if they do not work, we should replace them.
Democrats pass laws that feel good and then often are not concerned about enforcing them. This particularly applies to immigration.
We may not like all laws, but without consistent the rule of law a nation will deteriorate into lawlessness and chaos.
Reader: If the Right was the side of the Mind, they would be able to present rational ideas, not hysterical religious rhetoric for why marriage equality should not be the law of THIS land.
JJ: Both sides promote their ideas with religious fever. What you want to look for in polarization is not whether the person is flawless in reasoning but whether he presents his case using emotion or reasoning.
As far as gay marriage goes the Left pretty much say they feel it is just and good as their main case.
The Right analytically breaks things down and makes their case. You may not agree with this but it is presenting a case in what they see as logical details.
On this issue both the left and the right use reason and emotion, but the left will appeal more to emotion and the right to reasoning.
The fact that the Right is polarized in the analytical mind does not mean that they are always the most reasonable for they have not mastered illusion.
In our society emotion has ruled over mind for thousands of years by the left and the right. It is desirable that mind rule over emotion and in a few people this does happen. These people face an uphill battle in presenting their case but when they can prove their point beyond emotional doubt then even the astral ones will eventually accept. For example when the automobile was introduced many felt that it was just a nuisance, while the thinking people saw its potential, but eventually the emotional ones also embraced it.
Reader: The Course in Miracles says that when Truth is placed in opposition to Falsehood, Truth will always win, hands down.
JJ: Truth will eventually win but many will embrace a falsehood as being true even when wisely contrasted. It takes time for truth to become manifest to those in illusion.
Reader: The fact that neither side has won shows that neither side represents the complete truth.
JJ: As long as there are two competing sides neither will be declared the winner. Their contrasting viewpoints does help the public in the middle see truth in ways they could not if there were no contrast.
Without contrast we could not see anything revealed by the light of the sun or the light of the soul.
Two Different Approaches
I’ve been thinking about the subject of the polarization of the Left and the Right and I thought I would tabulate some of their differences.
I stated that the Right is polarized in the left brain/ analytical mental area and the Left centers more on the right brain/ emotional nature. A lot of people, especially from the Left would disagree with this as many of them consider the Right as being flat earthers who do not even accept science, or what to them appears to be common sense.
Discussing polarization is a much different animal than talking of intelligence. There are some very intelligent people polarized on both sides of the brain. Determining that polarization just tells us the direction their intelligence is focused.
Here is a tabulation illustrating the differences of the two sides. Keep in mind that all is not black and white. Both sides analyze and feel but one will always dominate more than the other.
[1] The Budget
The Right approaches this from the analytical mental angle. They advocate balancing the budget as much as possible for if we overspend too much the whole financial system could collapse as it has done for other nations in history. They have not been successful in accomplishing this and often violate their own principles, but it is part of their agenda.
The Left approaches this from the emotional side. If they feel a project is benevolent and desirable then they are willing to purchase it with borrowed money without taking the time to analyze what the end result will be if we continue to buy programs with money we do not have.
[2] How the money is spent.
The Right supports spending money on defense and national security. Their analytical minds tell then that even if there is not a great threat in the present, history tells us that we can expect something to crop up soon and we must be prepared for it. They only support social programs that are essential and put emphasis on self-reliance which appeals to the analytical mind.
The Left seeks to defund the military any time that we are not facing an imminent threat. If it feels like we are not threatened in the present then it feels like it will be that way tomorrow. Instead of concentrating on security they seek to spend money on programs that feel good, even though they are not essential.
[3] Authority
The Right does not support strong authority or powerful centralized government that does things for us that we can do for ourselves. It takes analytical thinking to be self-sufficient and this is the direction they pursue.
The Left wants strong authority and a strong central government that prevails over states and restricts individual freedom. This takes the thinking out of much of our decision-making and forces the people toward focusing on emotion.
(Note: This was illustrated during Covid when the left supported strong authority in forcing many to take the vaccine who did not want it and the right wanted to leave it up to the individual)
[4] Career choices
The Right tends to gravitate toward business, especially in the small and intermediate range. They are big on being entrepreneurs and working for themselves if at all possible. To be successful in business requires a lot of analytical thinking.
The Left gravitates toward bureaucratic work, especially in government. These jobs often require little analytical thinking but provide security which appeals to the emotional side.
The Left excels in the entertainment industry and creative arts. Highly charged emotional people do well here and the mental types are seen as backward.
[5] Arguments
Though both sides use facts in their arguments the Right tends to analytically piece various facts together to make a point.
For instance, on global warming the Right will lay out quite a number of facts whereas the Left will make maybe one statement and expect that to settle the argument. The most popular one is, “All scientists agree there is climate change.” By declaring this statement, the guy seems to think the argument is settled even though there are a thousand loose ends to clear up.
[6] The Constitution
The Right definitely approaches this from the analytical side. Many study it carefully analyzing the meaning of every word and every phrase.
The Left tends to read the Constitution much more casually and interpret it the way that feels right rather than how it may literally read.
That’s probably enough to make my point. We could go through all the differences and discover how one side approaches it from a more analytical side and the other from the feeling side.
[7] How they handle things when they do not get their way.
The Right is, of course, disappointed and may complain about unfairness about what is seen as a bad situation, but they regroup and attempt to work within the system to make change.
On the other hand, this is where the Left really shows their emotional polarization. When they do not get their way, instead of regrouping and merely planning a strategy, they will often protest and march in the street. This they do at least ten to one more than the Right. In addition, they will often confront those who are at the center of their discontent by going to their homes and even harassing their kids. If they are really upset they will turn violent, break windows, set cars on fire and physically attack police and innocent bystanders. This type of reaction is definitely from the emotions rather than the mind.
Examples of this are several of the most famous trials in recent memory.
The first was O.J. Simpson. Almost all the Right thought he should be judged guilty and most of the Left were sympathetic toward his innocence. When the Right did not get their way there were no marches and no violence. Even OJ himself did not consider his life being in danger and he was seen in public regularly after his trial.
On the other hand, after the Left did not get their way in the trial of the policemen involved in the Rodney King beating the reaction was based on pure unbridled raw emotion. Mobs formed and extreme violence erupted with many innocent people being injured. And it wasn’t just whites that were attacked but many Asians and black businesspeople suffered damages.
Then when the Left didn’t get their way in the Zimmerman trial, again there were protests. The media portrays these as being peaceful and yes, the reaction is not as violent as with the Rodney King case but there has been quite a bit of violence that has not been reported.
Unlike the OJ aftermath, Zimmerman is in fear of his life and has received many death threats, some of them from public figures published in the media. In addition, his family has received threats. These threats create a great contrast to the problems OJ faced which were merely of a legal nature created by the rational (but enraged) mind of Fred Goldman.
“The vaccine should be tested on politicians first. If they survive, the vaccine is safe. If they don’t, then the country is safe.” —Monika Wisniewska
July 21, 2013
Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
> On this issue both the left and the right use reason and emotion, but the left will appeal more to emotion and the right to reasoning.
The Right’s main appeals are to religion and tradition, which are matters of pure feeling.
> I stated that the Right is polarized in the left brain/ analytical mental area and the Left centers more on the right brain/ emotional nature. A lot of people, especially from the Left would disagree with this as many of them consider the Right as being flat earthers who do not even accept science, or what to them appears to be common sense.
This is true. Most scientists lean left, and many on the Right do not have respect for science when it produces findings that contradict what they have already decided is true. Climate change is a good example. When it comes to climate change, the Right is content to cite headlines, sensationalist news, and hoax petitions full of fake signatures and people with no climate science to their name. As for actually analytically evaluating scientific data and being part of the process that understands climate, the Right has shown they want no part of it. If the Right were the analytical side, they ought to have more of them doing the analytical work in science, but they’re not.
Just picture the average creationist who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and is obsessed with the gay agenda, and ask yourself who they voted for. Chances are almost certain that they are a Republican.
> The Right supports spending money on defense and national security. Their analytical minds tell then that even if there is not a great threat in the present, history tells us that we can expect something to crop up soon and we must be prepared for it.
Their emotional minds will have them go out looking for threats and, if they can’t find any, they’ll be happy to manufacture them.
* Democrat Derangement Syndrome
* Liberal Derangement Syndrome
* Biden Derangement Syndrome
* Obama Derangement Syndrome
* Socialist Derangement Syndrome
* Woke Derangement Syndrome
* Trans Derangement Syndrome
* California Derangement Syndrome
* Iran Derangement Syndrome
I could keep listing more about the list of boogeymen the Right is afraid of. Suffice to say, there is a shortage of analytical thought here. The Right could learn something from The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
> The Right does not support strong authority or powerful centralized government that does things for us that we can do for ourselves. It takes analytical thinking to be self-sufficient and this is the direction they pursue.
Defunding police, prison reform, abolishing the Senate, restricting executive power, and establishing supreme court term limits are hot policy items with the center-left DSA now. All of those things are examples of downsizing government authority and centralized power structures. It is the opposite of what you say.
> This was illustrated during Covid when the left supported strong authority in forcing many to take the vaccine who did not want it and the right wanted to leave it up to the individual
Covid was one of the biggest recent threats than anything the Right could manufacture. 9/11 killed thousands, Covid killed over a million, yet the response to 9/11 was wildly disproportionate, emotionally charged, and way more costly. To this day, the Right lets 9/11 hang over their heads as a good excuse for the government to be paranoid about everything that isn’t white Christian America. Again, the reality is the opposite of what you say.
> The Right tends to gravitate toward business, especially in the small and intermediate range. They are big on being entrepreneurs and working for themselves if at all possible. To be successful in business requires a lot of analytical thinking.
Then why are the blue states the most economically prosperous? The Right claims they are big on the business mindset, but when it comes time to actually show their fruit, their examples lag behind. Red states receive the most welfare, have more lower quality of life measures, and they’re always pointing the finger at more prosperous blue states in their media.
> The Left gravitates toward bureaucratic work, especially in government. These jobs often require little analytical thinking but provide security which appeals to the emotional side. The Left excels in the entertainment industry and creative arts. Highly charged emotional people do well here and the mental types are seen as backward.
The AI industry has its foundations in left-leaning states. California and Washington state alone are home to the core companies that have spearheaded the AI industry. AI itself is about the creation synthetic intelligence, which does involve a great deal of analytical thinking. Elon Musk is right-wing and involved in AI, but is mostly playing catchup and is struggling with the fact that many AI systems are no aligning with his right-wing views. Yet again, it is the opposite of what you say.
> For instance, on global warming the Right will lay out quite a number of facts whereas the Left will make maybe one statement and expect that to settle the argument. The most popular one is, “All scientists agree there is climate change.” By declaring this statement, the guy seems to think the argument is settled even though there are a thousand loose ends to clear up.
From you, I have never seen a single citation of a scientific paper on climate change, but only news headlines and videos that indulge your confirmation bias. If you say you and the Right are analytical on this, then show me your analytical work.
There is also, again, the Oregon Petition, which is a literal declaration of “these scientists agree with me,” but which is filled with fake signatures and people with no climate science to their name. You are projecting.
> Many study it carefully analyzing the meaning of every word and every phrase. The Left tends to read the Constitution much more casually and interpret it the way that feels right rather than how it may literally read.
A fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution would be an aversion to analytical thinking. Even you understand that, as you call out fundamentalist Christians for taking the Bible too literally to avoid thinking critically about their beliefs. The same applies to the Constitution.
> In addition, they will often confront those who are at the center of their discontent by going to their homes and even harassing their kids. If they are really upset they will turn violent, break windows, set cars on fire and physically attack police and innocent bystanders.
Don’t forget the January 6, 2021 riots where the Capitol Building was vandalized and several LEOs were assaulted. If you are going to honestly represent both sides, which we both know you don’t want to, you have to mention that too.
> The Right is, of course, disappointed and may complain about unfairness about what is seen as a bad situation, but they regroup and attempt to work within the system to make change.
“Working within the system” is just an innocent way of saying that the Right outsources their violence and bloodlust to the state. Notice how whenever the police or military commit a crime, right-wingers are happy to condone and downplay it. This tendency to stick to the letter of the law with no concern for morality or due process is also a characteristic of the Right, indicating that they would rather the state dictate to them what is right and wrong instead of analyze their own moral sensibilities, or lack thereof.
Nathan: The Right’s main appeals are to religion and tradition, which are matters of pure feeling.
JJ: Wrong as usual. The main appeal of the right is a logical approach to politics. This is what drew the most advanced thinker on the planet to join the right over the left – Elon Musk. He is neither religious or leans on tradition.
There are elements of religion that lean on feeling, but most of the religious people on the right go beyond their religious beliefs and try and support the political beliefs that make the most sense.
And as far as tradition goes it takes the mind to determine the traditions that are useful to keep and those that we need to drop. If something does not work well it is illogical to drop them replace them with something better.
You speak of the right being anti science on climate change, but I have found the left to rely on feeling rather than science much more than the right. When I talk to a typical leftist all they can say about climate change is that all or 90% of scientists agree, and that is all they know about it. Average people from the right have a lot more actual knowledge of the subject than average people on the left.
Scientists who promote the agenda behind orthodox climate change theory receive tremendous funding but those who are objective and willing to let the chips fall where they may receive basically zero funds from governments. Bjorn Lomborg, a humanist gay, who does not fit your stereotype of someone from the right, is a great example of a common sense investigator on the right. He has a great common sense approach supported by the right and no orthodox climate scientist can supply any good argument against him. I’ll be happy to send you one of his books on climate change if you want to see some actually reasoning on the subject.
I had to laugh at your ridiculous idea that the right has more illogical fears than the left. You can see this is not true if you just go shopping and look around and see who is wearing a mask. You immediately know this is a fearful Democrat and you also know the mask is doing basically no good at all.
You speak of derrangement syndromes I’ve never heard of before, but there is one that is definitely at play and that is the Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is completely illogical and it drives leftists absolutely crazy.
The leftist has about a dozen times more boogie man’s a fear than the people on the right. They’re the ones that wanted to keep the 55 mile an hour speed limit because they were fearful of going over 55 miles an hour.
They are the ones fearful of fairly harmless diseases to the extent they’ll get vaccinated like crazy four diseases that are pretty insignificant.
Whereas the left or crazy fearful about small things, they have little concern about things that we should logically be concerned about like a nuclear Iran. Many of them are completely un concerned about this as some something that could wind up destroying civilization itself if the situation is not put under control.
Prison reform and establishing supreme court term limits is supported by many on both sides and has little to do with strong authority.
The left only supports restricting presidential authority when a Republican is in office. When they have their own guy there the sky is the limit.
Defunding police, abolishing the Senate are crazy ideas that would wind up leading to more authoritative rule.
Overall, the left is for establishing laws and regulations to govern every part of our lives much more than the right.
You quote me as saying: “This was illustrated during Covid when the left supported strong authority in forcing many to take the vaccine who did not want it and the right wanted to leave it up to the individual.”
Then you say “the reality is the opposite of what you say.”
The reality is exactly what I say. You illogically bring in 911 to make your case, but the most authoritative thing from that was the Patriot Act which was supported by both parties. The Senate passed it 98 to 1.
What Covid showed us was which side was willing to impose on our personal lives and employment.
You ask: “Why are the blue states the most economically prosperous?”
Some of the blue states have more money in their system, but they’re not necessarily more prosperous. Here in Idaho, which some call the most conservative state, where I live we have all kinds of blue state people moving here and enjoying life much more than they did in their previous blue states, especially California.
And we did not ask for revenue sharing. Conservatives were against it. The liberals wanted to pass us so that they could control the conservative states.
You quote me as saying: “The Left gravitates toward bureaucratic work, especially in government. These jobs often require little analytical thinking but provide security which appeals to the emotional side.”
Then you ramble on about AI that has nothing to do with what I said.
You say: “A fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution would be an aversion to analytical thinking.”
You missed my point as usual. The point is that interpreting the Constitution, as our judges have to do, takes the use of the mind. To just interpret the law as you feel leads to chaos. I am not saying that the Constitution as written is the absolute truth. It’s fine to look beyond it and see what we can do to improve it, but we have to go by the laws as written to keep a stable society. We just can’t inject feeling and make that feeling law that goes against the written laws we already have. Laws need to be changed within tghfe sstem.
Jan 6 is about the only really case the left can make against the right for being destructive, but that was portrayed much worse than it was. There was a lot of people there who had never been in trouble that were just thinking they were entering the people’s house and wandering around the wound up spending time in jail and having their lives ruined. There’s only maybe a dozen people that really deserved punishment.
You say: “Notice how whenever the police or military commit a crime, right-wingers are happy to condone and downplay it.”
Yeah, sure, like when a member of the Capital Police shot an unarmed female veteran named Ashli Babbitt. The guy was given an award for killing her, the only person who died that day.
As I said it is important to work within the system to make change. Leftists are willing to work outside of the system which can lead to an unstable situation. It is best to work inside the system, even though the system may be imperfect.
> Wrong as usual. The main appeal of the right is a logical approach to politics. This is what drew the most advanced thinker on the planet to join the right over the left – Elon Musk. He is neither religious or leans on tradition.
What drew Elon Musk to join the Right was him being bitter (feelings) about his daughter’s transition and the realization that there are a lot of gullible dupes on the Right who will believe anything he says. You’d have to be pretty dim, believing all the bots that glaze him 24/7 on the Internet, to believe he is a great thinker.
> There are elements of religion that lean on feeling, but most of the religious people on the right go beyond their religious beliefs and try and support the political beliefs that make the most sense.
Another empty declaration with no analytical thought behind it. Political beliefs that seek to force religious indoctrination in schools and the state based on sentimental attachment and unsubstantiated claims about moral values do not make any logical sense. Denying women access to healthcare does not make any logical sense. Most religious people on the Right are too preoccupied with trans-people in sports these days to talk about anything that actually matters.
> And as far as tradition goes it takes the mind to determine the traditions that are useful to keep and those that we need to drop. If something does not work well it is illogical to drop them replace them with something better.
All traditions, by definition, reduce down to nothing more than repetitions of the past due to sentimental attachment, or feelings. It’s not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that, but analytical thought has little to do with it.
> You speak of the right being anti science on climate change, but I have found the left to rely on feeling rather than science much more than the right. When I talk to a typical leftist all they can say about climate change is that all or 90% of scientists agree, and that is all they know about it. Average people from the right have a lot more actual knowledge of the subject than average people on the left.
Then show me your peer-reviewed scientific research. Show me the Right’s peer-reviewed scientific research. Again, if you are as analytical about this as you say, you should have analytical work to back it up. “Deep diving” and doom-scrolling through videos that confirm your biases and indulge your personal feelings do not count as analytical thinking.
> Scientists who promote the agenda behind orthodox climate change theory receive tremendous funding but those who are objective and willing to let the chips fall where they may receive basically zero funds from governments. Bjorn Lomborg, a humanist gay, who does not fit your stereotype of someone from the right, is a great example of a common sense investigator on the right. He has a great common sense approach supported by the right and no orthodox climate scientist can supply any good argument against him. I’ll be happy to send you one of his books on climate change if you want to see some actually reasoning on the subject.
“Humanist gay” is not a scientific credential. Declarations about “common sense” are not scientific credentials or an analytical take. Empty, impotent declarations are not analytical. They are just baseless affirmations, like an obstinate toddler shouting “nuh-uh.” Using labels like “orthodox” is a deceptive rhetorical framing tactic used by non-analytical feelings as a feeble attempt to discredit that which you cannot. Notions about common sense are based on pure feelings. The analytical mind questions what is often declared as being common sense, because such things are often wrong.
Regarding Bjorn Lomborg, he has this to say: “Global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century.” He takes a side that seeks to approach the problem differently. He does not deny the problem. You are right that there are two sides to human-caused climate change. There is the side that wants to regress technology and life back to something simple and agrarian to solve the problem, those who want to embrace technology to solve the problem, and the spectrum of that in-between. Those that deny humans have a significant impact on climate change don’t fit into any serious side. That’s the peanut gallery.
> I had to laugh at your ridiculous idea that the right has more illogical fears than the left. You can see this is not true if you just go shopping and look around and see who is wearing a mask. You immediately know this is a fearful Democrat and you also know the mask is doing basically no good at all.
The ones wearing masks the most these days are ICE agents and white supremacist groups, right wing people.
> You speak of derrangement syndromes I’ve never heard of before, but there is one that is definitely at play and that is the Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is completely illogical and it drives leftists absolutely crazy.
Because they are not real, just like Trump Derangement Syndrome is not real. This is a typical tactic of the Right. When discredited, they make up labels and declare fake mental illnesses as a childish name-calling tactic to lash out with their feelings. You regard it as illogical and crazy. I agree, so why does the Right do it? I merely respond in kind. What annoys leftists is obstinate stupidity and adults acting like children using schoolyard tactics as a form of discourse. Sounds like you definitely have a case of Leftist Derangement Syndrome.
> The leftist has about a dozen times more boogie man’s a fear than the people on the right. They’re the ones that wanted to keep the 55 mile an hour speed limit because they were fearful of going over 55 miles an hour.
That’s not a real thing. It’s your Leftist Derangement Syndrome talking.
> They are the ones fearful of fairly harmless diseases to the extent they’ll get vaccinated like crazy four diseases that are pretty insignificant.
Turn this around. The Right are the ones fearful of fairly harmless vaccines to the extent that they’ll risk getting and spreading infection by diseases far more dangerous than vaccines. It’s pretty weird that people who claim to not be afraid of disease are extremely afraid of vaccines for them.
> Whereas the left or crazy fearful about small things, they have little concern about things that we should logically be concerned about like a nuclear Iran. Many of them are completely un concerned about this as some something that could wind up destroying civilization itself if the situation is not put under control.
A nuclear Iran? Is that anything like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Where were those? The boy is crying wolf again. What will it be next?
> The left only supports restricting presidential authority when a Republican is in office. When they have their own guy there the sky is the limit.
More Leftist Derangement Syndrome, this time a flavor of “nuh-uh, they started it.”
> Defunding police, abolishing the Senate are crazy ideas that would wind up leading to more authoritative rule.
You will declare this to be crazy, but you will not provide any analytical thinking about why, because you are governed by feelings. The Senate gives 2 seats for each state, granting disproportionate power to rural conservative states that do not have the population representative of their portion in the Senate. Apparently, DEI is fine as long as it supports rural conservatives.
As for defunding police, crime has been declining for decades now. Even you acknowledge that, so then why do the police need to keep their funding? If a problem is declining, the expense to deal with the smoke of that problem should also be reduced in the interest of fiscal responsibility or more productive programs.
> The reality is exactly what I say. You illogically bring in 911 to make your case, but the most authoritative thing from that was the Patriot Act which was supported by both parties. The Senate passed it 98 to 1.
Under which presidential administration? Bush, a Republican.
The one senator who opposed it? Russ Feingold, a Democrat.
> What Covid showed us was which side was willing to impose on our personal lives and employment.
What Covid showed us was which side was the analytical side. The analytical mind assesses the greatest danger by its measured impact, and responds accordingly. A disease killing millions is a greater threat than an ill-equipped terrorist organization killing thousands. Millions > thousands. It is simple arithmetic, but I guess even that goes over the head of the average right-winger.
> Some of the blue states have more money in their system, but they’re not necessarily more prosperous. Here in Idaho, which some call the most conservative state, where I live we have all kinds of blue state people moving here and enjoying life much more than they did in their previous blue states, especially California.
You are correct. There are a lot of people leaving sunny breezy California with their bags packed full of excuses, because they do not have the hustle to live in such a prosperous place. As it is, California is still the most populous state and the 4th largest economy in the world, because places like Idaho do not have the hustle to achieve what California has. That’s why the Right loves to hate such places, because those places have achieved what the Right can only envy.
> And we did not ask for revenue sharing. Conservatives were against it. The liberals wanted to pass us so that they could control the conservative states.
According to your Principle of Domination, it is ideal for the analytical mind to dominate and prevail over the whims of emotions, so the analytical states centered on the mind must prevail and dominate over the states governed by emotion. This is especially necessary to balance out the DEI program for rural conservatives states, known as the Senate.
> Then you ramble on about AI that has nothing to do with what I said.
It has a great deal to do with what you said. You say the Left gravitates toward bureaucratic work, and I pointed out an example of how the industries on the frontier of civilization exist in left-leaning states, disproving your baseless claim. A large part of modern life is owed to industries born out of left-leaning regions like California and Washington state. Red states don’t have much of those industries. Idaho has Micron, I’ll give it that. That’s about it though. List all the major technology companies. The vast majority are in California and Washington, two of the greatest states in the nation.
> You missed my point as usual. The point is that interpreting the Constitution, as our judges have to do, takes the use of the mind. To just interpret the law as you feel leads to chaos. I am not saying that the Constitution as written is the absolute truth. It’s fine to look beyond it and see what we can do to improve it, but we have to go by the laws as written to keep a stable society. We just can’t inject feeling and make that feeling law that goes against the written laws we already have. Laws need to be changed within tghfe sstem.
This is just “It’s from the mind when the Right is judging, it’s from feeling when the Left is judging,” another circular labeling rhetorical tactic made in response to being discredited. You can’t just inject empty declarations that say your judgments come from thinking, when they actually come from feeling, and establish that as reality. You actually have to show your analysis/analytical process. You care about a stable society and order, which is fine. I’m saying you should care a little bit more about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> Jan 6 is about the only really case the left can make against the right for being destructive, but that was portrayed much worse than it was. There was a lot of people there who had never been in trouble that were just thinking they were entering the people’s house and wandering around the wound up spending time in jail and having their lives ruined. There’s only maybe a dozen people that really deserved punishment.
You would not apply this standard if the situation were reversed.
> Yeah, sure, like when a member of the Capital Police shot an unarmed female veteran named Ashli Babbitt. The guy was given an award for killing her, the only person who died that day.
To that, I will respond with rhetoric that is common from the Right: It was her fault, for if she had just stayed inside and out of the officer’s way that day, she would be alive.