I never understood that nuance... The Left-Wing consistently based their policy on stats and reasoning. The Right-Wing usually revolve around 'absolute morals' that they assign to a religious authority to then call everyone who opposes it 'evil', no matter how good the opposition's reasoning is.
Why exactly are the Right-Wing considered the 'rational' side of the spectrum?
is that a joke?
anyone considers right wingers rational other than their own crazy asses
What you just said made no grammatical sense.
I think you meant 'nobody' when you said 'anyone' but that's not entirely true...
Probably because we try to adhere to the laws of economics. Price fixing, minimum wage laws, rent control, etc are very problematic.
I don't know too many right-wingers that base policy on religion. Perhaps some of their social views are influenced by religious ways of thinking?
I could make generalizations about how Democrats base their policies on feelings, rather than common sense. Then, when someone disagrees, they label people as "racist" "homophobe", etc. I don't see that furthering the conversation, though.
What are some of the major policies of Democrats that you feel are based upon feelings rather than common sense?
crazy people don't know they are crazy, how about that?
I gave the example of rent control. When you get rid of the incentive to maintain property and incentive of good profits, you get decrepit housing and housing shortages.
It sounds nice, giving cheap housing to poor people, but in practice it is rather terrible.
The idea that either the Left or the Right are irrational is silly. Both make proficient points backed up by facts(usually). This is why I have trouble with political podcasts, they fail to acknowledge the reasonable people on the opposing side.
Both are based on what people believe which is based on what people value.
Left uses less Religion which is better at helping people.
Can be seen with pro-immigation, rent-control, against ICE, care about racial and class injustices
Right uses more Religion which doesn't have the same impact.
Can be seen with against immigration, pro law enforcement, care less about racial and class injustices
Another important factor is the unification of both sides. The left is not unified whereas the right are more so. This can be seen with socialist trying to gate-keep or have the moral high-ground over liberals and in some cases indirectly against the very people they are trying to help. The right would be with Trump's approval rating which has remained so high for Republicans. Monmouth University poll has him at a 84%. AP-NORC has him at a 79% and Fox News has him at a 86%. With the left you have socialists and liberals. Pelosi is disliked by AOC even though it is in both of their interests to work together. I blame that more on socialists who don't know incremental change is how you get things done not radical change in a political climate who don't like your ideas because of how easy it is to fall into the rights narrative.
Now onto the question of optics. The reason why the right is seen more as "reasonable" is because of dumbf*cks online like skeptics and conservatives using the words like rational for their irrational ideas. This can be explained by if something wrong is spread around it will eventually be correct or something, either that or Religion is so ingrained and the only thing the right has to do is vocalize their Religious base. It just so happens they were also popular so the popular consensus would be that they are more reasonable because Ben beats college kids. Now I think it is clear it is the persuasive rhetoric that wins him but people don't see it like that. Conservative ideas are way more palatable given how much easier it is to understand so it easier for people who are less educated to be welcoming of their ideas. I don't blame the less educated. I am blame the left who don't actually decide to make their points straight and simple while also being unified. I wouldn't want to be talked down by someone instead I would like to feel good about being wrong so I don't imagine others would like that either.
Both think they are doing good.
The left does more good but it is more complicated which can be blamed on their bad way of giving out information and on the thing they are advocating for.
The right does more bad but it is simpler which can be blamed for how good they are at giving out information and how simple it is to advocate for their ideas.
The right has better way of sending their message which is why it is easier for them to platform as rational instead of what they actually are. The left don't understand that people are not going to change their mind if you talk down to them which makes it more difficult if you want people to accept your ideas.
The Right isn't as united as you may think. From our perspective, you guys are the collectivists who stick together. Like when one of your people says something controversial, you back them up. When one of ours does, we throw them to the wolves, unfortunately. When we had a Republican president and majorities in both the Senate and House, we hardly got anything done. We also really hate Neo Cons/RINOs, which could be considered our version of your socialists. Trying to take our party down a bad path.
Evidence.The Right isn't as united as you may think.
Any person can invoke a "stat" and arguments by definition consist of "reasoning." Left-Wing legislators are usually and demonstrably wrong when it comes to fiscal policy, and as far as social policy, they're both comparably fascist. I'd endorse neither party because that would really be like comparing the intellgence of Dumb and Dumber. But Left-Wing politics would be in my judgement "Dumber."I never understood that nuance... The Left-Wing consistently based their policy on stats and reasoning. The Right-Wing usually revolve around 'absolute morals' that they assign to a religious authority to then call everyone who opposes it 'evil', no matter how good the opposition's reasoning is.
Namely, securing funding for building a wall, which was the main campaign promise of the Republican president.
I don't think either side is generally considered more rational. I think they both consider their own side to be rational and the other side to be feelings based. Consider this:
The Left-Wing consistently based their policy on stats and reasoning. The Right-Wing usually revolve around 'absolute morals' that they assign to a religious authority to then call everyone who opposes it 'evil', no matter how good the opposition's reasoning is.
Rephrase it to say, "The Right-Wing consistently based their policy on stats and reasoning. The Left-Wing usually revolve around 'social justice' that they assign to a woke authority to then call everyone who opposes it 'evil', no matter how good the opposition's reasoning is."
From the perspective of people on the right like myself, this statement seems true (although weirder because "woke authority" doesn't make as much sense as "religious authority"). I think the real trouble is that right-wingers watch too much Fox and left-wingers watch too much CNN. Whenever they see someone from the opposing side on those channels, it's usually someone who can't make a good argument and doesn't rely on facts. As a result, they perceive people from their own side as using facts and people from the other side as using feelings. Concerning the point of calling the other side "evil," both sides are equally guilty. People stop to be offended by statements that insult them but are more likely to scroll past statements insulting the other side. You see people on the right calling liberals evil. As someone on the right, I am continually seeing the left calling the right evil. Just think for a moment: Who was the last Republican president that the media didn't call a racist? Sexist? Bigot? Homophobe? Fascist? On the flip side, who was the last Democratic president that wasn't called a communist? If you think that one side is less insulting than the other, then I think that you have tunnel vision. And if you're thinking to yourself, "But they really are those things!" then you are only proving my point.
Polling data?Namely, securing funding for building a wall, which was the main campaign promise of the Republican president.
Also, right-wingers tend to make exceptions and allowances for people being vastly different due to the variance in nature and the human condition to be different.
Left-wingers believe egalitarianism is possible with zero inequality, completely ignoring the laws of nature and the human condition.
It is number one on a list of ten campaign promises. I don't know if that is sufficient from what you are asking. You were rather vague.
So in other words, they don't permit dissidence?
Make sense, considering they are the ones trying to ban speech they disagree with, protest speakers on campus to try to keep them from speaking, attack conservatives at rallies, etc.
Read this wiki article.
In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.
One April, 14-year-old Harrison Bergeron, an intelligent, athletic, and good-looking teenager, is taken away from his parents, George and Hazel Bergeron, by the government. They are barely aware of the tragedy, as Hazel has "average" intelligence (a euphemism for stupidity), and George has a handicap radio installed by the government to regulate his above-average intelligence.
Hazel and George watch ballet on television. They comment on the dancers, who are weighed down to counteract their gracefulness and masked to hide their attractiveness. George's thoughts are continually interrupted by the different noises emitted by his handicap radio, which piques Hazel's curiosity and imagination regarding handicaps. Noticing his exhaustion, Hazel urges George to lie down and rest his "handicap bag", 47 pounds (21 kg) of weights locked around George's neck. She suggests taking a few of the weights out of the bag, but George resists, aware of the illegality of such an action.
On television, a news reporter struggles to read the bulletin and hands it to the ballerina wearing the most grotesque mask and heaviest weights. She begins reading in her unacceptably natural, beautiful voice, then apologizes before switching to a more unpleasant voice. Harrison's escape from prison is announced, and a full-body photograph of Harrison is shown, indicating that he is seven feet (2.1 m) tall and burdened by three hundred pounds (140 kg) of handicaps.
George recognizes his son for a moment, before having the thought eliminated by his radio. Harrison himself then storms the television studio in an attempt to overthrow the government. He calls himself the Emperor and rips off all of his handicaps, along with the handicaps of a ballerina, whom he proclaims his "Empress". He orders the musicians to play, promising them nobility if they do their best. Unhappy with their initial attempt, Harrison takes control for a short while, and the music improves. After listening and being moved by the music, Harrison and his Empress dance while flying to the ceiling, then pause in mid-air to kiss.
Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, enters the studio and kills Harrison and the Empress with a ten-gauge double-barreled shotgun. She forces the musicians to put on their handicaps, and the television goes dark. George, unaware of the televised incident, returns from the kitchen and asks Hazel why she was crying, to which she replies that something sad happened on television that she cannot remember. He comforts her and they return to their average lives.
Polling data as in "securing funding for building a wall" was a contention in the Republican party?
They had the majority of both houses and didn't pass it. Is that not evidence enough of disunity?