Who are you voting for?

[Osmia]

lol I'm an INFP

I'm an INTJ, so I guess I'm not s'posed to be a liberal

But I do have a lot of empathy... Why can't I just neatly fit into a pigeonhole?

 

[Osmia]

The problem with what you are saying is there are exceptions and variations in everything but we need to simplify in order to talk about things and not everyone will be represented to the T in a generalization, but that is what generalizations are for, so we can simplify reality to talk about it.

We could say that a table is a piece of furniture with a flat surface used for eating that usually has 4 legs. You could then claim: "not all tables are for eating" true. "Not all tables are flat on the surface" true also and "not all tables have 4 legs" also true. So what do we do? Do we get rid of language? No, because we understand that even though there are exceptions and variations we agree on what the concept of a table means and most tables fall within that description.

With the couple from the article, I did not use them like they were a representation of a majority of liberals, I used them as a perfect example of what liberal ideology holds true. It is a good example precisely because of how extreme it is. And even when you call them "bizarre" the were the darlings of liberal media from the Guardian to the NY Times to the front page of Reddit for a month because of how "selfless" they are. So I think it is fair to say that liberals identify with the concept of helping others that have no connection to them before helping their own in-group. There are many others examples of this: adopting kids from Cambodia before adopting kids from your own city, accepting Syrian immigrants and giving them welfare that you don't even give your own poor people and a long list of similar things.

We can also agree that even if the Wise couple cannot know for sure whether each African person their money goes to is truly in more need than people elsewhere, we can safely say that there is a very slim chance that American people are going through the same hardships Africans are going to. They probably did quite a bit of research since they are giving away 50% of what they make to them.

Either way I think you are just nitpicking my posts for fun or to pass the time and I think everyone understands what I am trying to say well, it is a bit boring having to explain the same concepts 50 times and clarify what is already evident so I want to step back and let others interact with you on the thread.

Nitpicking? I don't think so. That term implies a mass of trivial objections designed to obfuscate the substance of the points being discussed. What I'm trying to do is illuminate your habitual categorical, black and white language that leads me to believe that you may not understand that people are individuals, whose qualities fall along a continuum. And that liberals (and conservatives) are not cookie cutter stereotypes. When you say, "I think it is fair to say that liberals identify with the concept of helping others that have no connection to them before helping their own in-group," do you mean that *all* liberals identify with that concept (which is the plain sense of your language), or do you mean that *some* liberals feel this way? If it's the former, then you are plainly wrong. If it's the latter, why not just say it that way, the way most people would? You would not be weakening your arguments; precisely the opposite. You may "think everyone understands what I am trying to say." Well, we can all read your words, but what are you trying to say?

I think people in general resent being characterized with generalities and stereotypes. Speaking for myself, I often find that you have interesting things to say, but it is tiresome to wade through endless slurs and mischaracterizations of my political orientation (not directed at me specifically), even though I know that's just how you tend to express yourself. Do you want to have a dialog (with anyone in this thread), with a genuine interchange of ideas, or do you want to repeat the same assertions over and over?

 

[ACFFAN69]

Politifact is a incredibly reputable site and they interviewed the director of The River School (the school attributed with translating what Michelle said) and they stated that they had nothing to do with it.

I'm more apt to believe a website like Politifact than some random youtube conspiracy channel.

I'll preface this by saying I agree with you completely in this specific topic and would trust politifact a lot more then a random youtube link.

That said I am very distrustful of politifact in general. It's incredibly democratic/left leaning and should be viewed skeptically with that in mind (just as any news source should be viewed with the lens of bias they each have, left or right leaning). It's owned by The Tampa Bay Times, a paper that has on record, publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton. They've endorsed the democratic nominee in every election since at least 2000. Tampa Bay Times are owned by Poynter Institute, which is heavily funded by George Soros. I think it's an important thing to keep in mind whenever reading any stats/article from them.

I say this as a generally left leaning individual.

 

[SexySteph]

I'll preface this by saying I agree with you completely in this specific topic and would trust politifact a lot more then a random youtube link.

That said I am very distrustful of politifact in general. It's incredibly democratic/left leaning and should be viewed skeptically with that in mind (just as any news source should be viewed with the lens of bias they each have, left or right leaning). It's owned by The Tampa Bay Times, a paper that has on record, publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton. They've endorsed the democratic nominee in every election since at least 2000. Tampa Bay Times are owned by Poynter Institute, which is heavily funded by George Soros. I think it's an important thing to keep in mind whenever reading any stats/article from them.

I say this as a generally left leaning individual.

I agree with you, I've found articles that there is a bias. But the research I've done personally it seems the bias isn't that they'll say repubs are lying when they're not or say liberals are honest when they're not. It's more that they'll seek out cases when Rs are lying and Ds are honest and then grade those.

So the bias is there but they're not lying when they grade if that makes sense?

It's like if you're a kid and your mom punished both you and your sibling equally for rule breaking when your caught, but your mom seems to intentionally not catch your sibling more often.

 

[Nordling]

 

[Ms_Diane]

So I think it is fair to say that liberals identify with the concept of helping others that have no connection to them before helping their own in-group.

This is not fair to say at all. Many many people who lean towards the left would not identify with how you have characterized who they want to help and why. I also think you can want to help people in your own country and people in other places at the same time. And I think you can relate to people for many different reasons, perhaps these reasons are not obvious to you.

 

[LuckySmiles]

This is not fair to say at all. Many many people who lean towards the left would not identify with how you have characterized who they want to help and why. I also think you can want to help people in your own country and people in other places at the same time. And I think you can relate to people for many different reasons, perhaps these reasons are not obvious to you.

It sounds nice in theory, but it's consequentially dangerous. If you do not repair a stagnating economy, that is still stuck under pre-recession levels, and propose mass influx of homeless penniless people, (to greater numbers than currently, the amount of people displaced, are in the millions)that are going to be on government assistance at least a few years you are playing with fire, and economic disaster.

Hey we might have the space or some jobs!.. depends where you're going... OH!.... the already struggling parts of America... I see...
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/55826987-story
^^^ Pontiac, MI (building the refugee center) is not exactly a fancy schmancy neighborhood.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...03/19/refugees-michigan-recent-high/82031954/
What kind of message does that send? People involved in the contracts for the business of resesttling refugees also make money on it... oh... people leave that out don't they?... convenient....

So let's take in all the people! America! (but lets just keep them with all the other poor people while we rake in the benefits of these contracts so no one notices mmkay....)

You have to focus on things best for the economy of the area on the whole, most people can easily see more people on welfare does not fix any of that.

But other people can feel good about themselves from far away, saying "let's help all the people! America!" Without being directly involved or affected by any of the consequences of it ever.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

It sounds nice in theory, but it's consequentially dangerous. If you do not repair a stagnating economy, that is still stuck under pre-recession levels, and propose mass influx of homeless penniless people, (to greater numbers than currently, the amount of people displaced, are in the millions)that are going to be on government assistance at least a few years you are playing with fire, and economic disaster.

Hey we might have the space or some jobs!.. depends where you're going... OH!.... the already struggling parts of America... I see...
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/55826987-story
^^^ Pontiac, MI (building the refugee center) is not exactly a fancy schmancy neighborhood.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...03/19/refugees-michigan-recent-high/82031954/
What kind of message does that send? People involved in the contracts for the business of resesttling refugees also make money on it... oh... people leave that out don't they?... convenient....

So let's take in all the people! America! (but lets just keep them with all the other poor people while we rake in the benefits of these contracts so no one notices mmkay....)

You have to focus on things best for the economy of the area on the whole, most people can easily see more people on welfare does not fix any of that.

But other people can feel good about themselves from far away, saying "let's help all the people! America!" Without being directly involved or affected by any of the consequences of it ever.

Yes, it does sound nice in theory, but...Fear! Danger! Trump will save, or fire! Disaster!

I watched and considered the stories you shared. I see the picture. I have lived it, and I have felt it. Now let's zoom out a little bit.

While the Syrians are fleeing for their lives...while the Latin Americans are migrating northward...there are un-American elements in our midsts that are doing far more damage. They are multinational. Their only goals are power and profit. They see NOTHING else.

While the lesser fret and worry about whether or not they will have a job, so they can continue to pay for things they will never truly own, they sit in surroundings like this...



You see an American flag in this picture? Hell no. That flag won't mean anything to him until he can claim he owns it.


Here he is with an overcompensatory display of flags...



Why? Because now he is talking to the little people. The flag means something to them. He knows he needs them, and he knows the only way to get them is to convince them of the opposite...that they need him. They don't.


I am not a big fan of the cable news channels. I'll let others worry about who is more biased at any given moment. But here is a clip I found very interesting...



Skip to 8:47 for a compilation of Trump's statements from his speech yesterday (which I watched live). This will disgust if you understand what the man is doing. Probably won't if you are just afraid and angry.

This whole clip is worth watching IMO. Intriguing. Though truth be told, I would much rather be Mika Brzezinski's little cuck than get pegged with Rachel Maddow's ideological strap-on.


https://www.amazon.com/first-casualty-Vietnam-correspondent-propagandist/dp/0151312648

 

[LuckySmiles]

I did not even mention Trump. But I am being realistic in terms of policy.. Europe wasn't taking in too many people at first either...

But this also applies to when I say things don't always come from a place of bigotry. Do I think the little arab american kids shooting their toy guns at me while playing cops and robbers(hopefully that's what it's called lol) when I walk into my house are going to grow up to be terrorists? No I think it's hilarious and adorable(I've literally been fake shot at by little kids using my door as base lol). And the irony isn't lost on me that many little white kids aren't being raised/allowed to do the same anymore.

But I'm not going to pretend no one from these countries ever hated America and might slip through a government that's terrible at so many things, and I'm not going to pretend these "good feels" policies don't also come with economic consequences.

So my response was to the false idea of helping all people at the same time vs. prioritizing.

 

[Osmia]

. . . .So my response was to the false idea of helping all people at the same time vs. prioritizing.

@Ms_Diane said, "I also think you can want to help people in your own country and people in other places at the same time." I don't read that as wanting to help all people equally at the same time. I don't read that as failing to prioritize. You can help your family, your community, your country, and still help those in need on the other side of the world to some extent if you've taken care of the needs close to home first.

 

[Mila_]

This is not fair to say at all. Many many people who lean towards the left would not identify with how you have characterized who they want to help and why. I also think you can want to help people in your own country and people in other places at the same time. And I think you can relate to people for many different reasons, perhaps these reasons are not obvious to you.

I really don't get what is so hard to understand. If someone says that right-wing people consider religion important and that it is a value of the Right, I would totally agree even though I am not religious in the slightest. But just because I am not religious doesnt mean religion is not a value the Right stands for. And for me to claim "No! not everyone on the Right is religious!" when it is obvious not every single person on the right will fit into that description and it isn't necessary for them to do it, would be hypocritical because it would be like trying to strip away true qualities that make up right-wing ideology.

I am not a traditional person, I am a camgirl, I work in an adult website. Does that mean the Right doesn't disapprove of pornography? No. Tradition and sexual modesty is an ideal of the right wing. And true, there are entire sections of the right like the libertarians, who do support pornography but that is not representative of the right. If we want to pinpoint what the essence of the Right is, we would have to include tradition.

And it is clear that loyalty is not a leftist value, I don't understand how you guys claim the opposite. Tell me which of these statements you agree with:

a) The EU needs to stop accepting all refugees from Syria until they know that they are not a threat to EU citizens
b) The EU needs to accept as many refugees as they can and continue to let them in even when terrorism has increased in EU soil and EU citizens have been brutally murdered

a) The US should build a wall on the mexican border to keep american citizens safe and avoid having to carry the burden of Mexican poor people and criminals.
b) The US should continue to let illegal immigrants in and grant them amnesty even if that means that americans will have less jobs available and that the american welfare system will be overloaded.

a) A woman who wants kids should give birth to them so she can pass on her family's genetic legacy to a new generation.
b) A woman who wants kids should adopt or foster because there are too many kids without a home already.

a) People are part of their family first, then part of their own people, then part of their nation, then part of their culture, and then part of their civilization. A person has more in common with someone from their own race and nation than with someone from another regardless of what their income is.
b) People are part of humanity. There is no race but the Human Race. Two people can have anything and all in common with others regardless of what race, culture, or nation they come from. Rich people and poor people have little in common even if they are a part of the same nation.

a) You must defend your family from strangers using all the power at your disposal. If a stranger invades your home defending yourself and your family with a firearm is justified.
b) Violence is never justified. If someone wants to defend themselves from others that is what police is for. If someone invades your home you cannot use a firearm or threaten their lives just because of it even if the life of your family is at risk.

I could go on, and on, and on. But I think you see the pattern.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I could go on, and on, and on. But I think you see the pattern.

Clearly. The pattern is you presenting false black and white choices, and using them to reassure yourself that your false black and white assertions are correct.

 

[LuckySmiles]

@Ms_Diane said, "I also think you can want to help people in your own country and people in other places at the same time." I don't read that as wanting to help all people equally at the same time. I don't read that as failing to prioritize. You can help your family, your community, your country, and still help those in need on the other side of the world to some extent if you've taken care of the needs close to home first.

Ok but we haven't. I haven't. Detroit hasn't. Michigan hasn't. SO I'll worry about the people already still here first. That is my point. But someone in suburban connecticut might tell me I don't care about the refugees or I'm Islamaphobic and I'm going to lose my shit lol. Because it's not going to affect them... it will affect me,local businesses, my daily life, and that of people close to me.

hypotheticals suburban connecticuters of course. Nothing against connecticut...

 

[Protocosmo]

I could go on, and on, and on. But I think you see the pattern.

Choosing between one or the other says very little about the value one puts into loyalty. Those examples are more about where you choose to put your loyalties and the choices you may be forced make given the circumstances. Your examples are mostly absurd anyway. Like the wall one. Why is supporting the building of an idiotic wall on the Mexican border any greater of a demonstration of your loyalty to country than doing anything at all less patently moronic about this issue? I have a certain loyalty towards not building monuments to fear and stupidity.

Let me rephrase that. My loyalty to country prevents me from supporting bad decisions. I'm not going to argue whether it is or not. It just is. It's a bad idea. Let me repeat myself like Trump. It seems to work on people. It is a bad idea. Stupid. Stupid.

 

[Ms_Diane]

wow. i just think that some of us want to help different kinds of people in different places for lots of different reasons and that's all really. i don't think this is necessarily a liberal tendency. i'm sure, in fact i know, there are a lot of people who are conservative leaning who want to help people who are not their "in-group". it's a generalization that i don't think holds up. that's all i was saying guys.

I was not even going anywhere near refugees! i thought we were talking about african aid and adopting cambodian orphans. but, no one's gonna judge you if you don't want to help both people in your own country and in another country. you might get judged if you don't want to help muslims refugees because they are muslims, then that is different. but i am coming from a canadian point of view where refugees and immigration is a very accepted aspect of the world we live in here.

@Kitsune said that it's fair to say "that liberals identify with the concept of helping others that have no connection to them before helping their own in-group."

i do understand what you are saying here, i just disagree with this assumptions about liberals. and i think that liberal leaning people would feel like it is not fair generalization. i think that most liberals would say that prioritizing is important and that we can and should do both. maybe that is the more stereotypical liberal attitude?

a lot of people who donate or do volunteer work or support government programs to help people in our local communities, also support helping people in other places, whether it is in northern ontario or syria or new orleans or haiti or lesotho.

one thing to consider is that when you live somewhere where the community is largely in existence because of immigration, there are often people in other parts of the world that you know, or are related to or can relate to and therefore it feels very natural to reach out to them and offer help when you can. and these same people are gonna support government policies for things like refugee programs for the same reasons. i am saying this to try and explain why people think it is important to work on issues at home and in other countries. it is not necessarily about liberal ideas or policies. many of us in fact feel like we are helping people from our own in-group. and that's another reason why i stopped to comment about that as a generalization.

the idea of loyalty is a very interesting one. i was not even thinking of it that way at all. i am going to ask some of my more conservative friends if they think being loyal is important and if they think liberals are not loyal. i wonder if this is just not as much of a thing in canada. sorry to bring up canada so much (swidt?)

 

[JoleneBrody]

the majority of right wing conservatives I know are religious, and missionary work outside of the U.S is a major staple in their lives... So I have a hard time seeing it as a liberal thing.
Sending money to impoverished communities in other countries has always looked like a very conservative thing to me, for this reason. But that's just my view, I have a pastor evangelical father and a Very messianic Jewish mother (and yes they are long divorced haha). Father church is very dedicated to over seas charity and my mom sends more money and effort to Israel, but to her defense she is a teacher here in the US but will be moving to Israel shortly.
So any who, that's how my view is influenced

 

[Osmia]

. . . .
the idea of loyalty is a very interesting one. i was not even thinking of it that way at all. i am going to ask some of my more conservative friends if they think being loyal is important and if they think liberals are not loyal. i wonder if this is just not as much of a thing in canada. sorry to bring up canada so much (swidt?)

According to @Kitsune, loyalty is one of the moral dimensions experienced by conservatives, but not by liberals:

"Loyalty/betrayal: this relates to in-group loyalty so it is the basis for ideas of patriotism, nationalism, pride and tradition. In my opinion this foundation is possibly the most problematic for liberals to understand. Because not only do they not understand this value, they actively fight it with all their might."
​

This definition is quite one-sided and lacking in nuance, to put it mildly. However, I can accept the notion that conservatives tend to feel this moral value somewhat more strongly than liberals, on average. But, it's certainly not the case that conservatives have a monopoly on "loyalty."

 

[LuckySmiles]

the majority of right wing conservatives I know are religious, and missionary work outside of the U.S is a major staple in their lives... So I have a hard time seeing it as a liberal thing.
Sending money to impoverished communities in other countries has always looked like a very conservative thing to me, for this reason. But that's just my view, I have a pastor evangelical father and a Very messianic Jewish mother (and yes they are long divorced haha). Father church is very dedicated to over seas charity and my mom sends more money and effort to Israel, but to her defense she is a teacher here in the US but will be moving to Israel shortly.
So any who, that's how my view is influenced

The difference is people send people to help people over there to rebuild their own countries. We already send our soldiers over there to die supposedly helping good guys fight the bad guys. So now we stop doing that... let the bad guys have all of Iraq for example, fuggit,... and just invite everyone's left over here....how does that work. When we can barely feed our own people... and then the struggling mom and pop places can just go right out of business because muslim refugees have no money and don't drink or like most american entertainment. And then more people are out of work and homeless gahhh. And there's still terrible people who legit definitely do hate us taking over entire countries. And all our veterans are home in dire straits for what... exactly...

THANKS OBAMA!!!! (and hillary)

There's no right answer at this point but there are other options like actually destroying groups like ISIS instead of pretending, giving a fraction of the money we'd spend on refugee welfare in America to muslim nation allies willing to take them in. But you don't those ideas much on the table. Wouldn't be surprised if whoever owns the contracts making the money on all the resettling had something to do with that.

It's not a conspiracy but the level of insanity behind all these things makes it seem like it's intentional sometimes. Smiles for prez 2020!... I think I'll be old enough... oh its 35 I'll still be 25 damn too bad.

 

[JoleneBrody]

The difference is people send people to help people over there to rebuild their own countries. We already send our soldiers over there to die supposedly helping good guys fight the bad guys. So now we stop doing that... let the bad guys have all of Iraq for example, fuggit,... and just invite everyone's left over here....how does that work. When we can barely feed our own people... and then the struggling mom and pop places can just go right out of business because muslim refugees have no money and don't drink or like most american entertainment. And then more people are out of work and homeless gahhh. And there's still terrible people who legit definitely do hate us taking over entire countries. And all our veterans are home in dire straits for what... exactly...

THANKS OBAMA!!!! (and hillary)

There's no right answer at this point but there are other options like actually destroying groups like ISIS instead of pretending, giving a fraction of the money we'd spend on refugee welfare in America to muslim nation allies willing to take them in. But you don't those ideas much on the table. Wouldn't be surprised if whoever owns the contracts making the money on all the resettling had something to do with that.

It's not a conspiracy but the level of insanity behind all these things makes it seem like it's intentional sometimes. Smiles for prez 2020!... I think I'll be old enough... oh its 35 I'll still be 25 damn too bad.

I'm not sure why I'm quoted... because I think you may be talking about a separate subject to what I was? I dunno... I'm confused now.

Missionary work costs a LOT of money, on top of the straight donating without travel that happens a lot. I wasn't saying that it's wrong or whatever, just pointing out why I disagreed with the idea that sending money overseas to help starving children is a primarily liberal thing. Just watch the T.V ads to sponsor a child, or the heaviest international relief funds... they are usually affiliated with a church and religious people are predominantly conservative and republican in the united states.

Now I'm also not saying that liberals don't donate to international charities, just pointing out what appears to be a major flaw in the idea that they are the only, or even primary source.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

THANKS OBAMA!!!! (and hillary)

You are damn right! Thank you Obama, for not being the black muslim version of a Donald Trump!!!
And thank you Hillary, for not being a twit like Palin!!!

I remember in 2008 shaking my head. Not because what the Republicans brought to the game was deplorable (started with the letter "SarahPalin", ended with the letter "HowBatshitCanThisHagPossiblyBe"); no, it was because of ease with which she was able to get the Republicans around me to set aside their good sense. But that was back in the good old days, when the thought of Trump winning the Republican nomination was too laughable to even be considered.

I was also around a lot of blacks who were rooting for Obama; thought they were kidding themselves about how great he was going to be. Except for one I remember, who told me she thought they would either kill him, or set him up and then blame shit on him.

But I think Obama has done a fair job for Team UCOA. He took the handoff from Bush, and carried for another 8 yards.

 

[Lili_xo]

Here are some examples of liberal "loyalty" and giving nature at work :

FAMILY STORY
8 year old Suzy returns home from school and finds her favorite toys gone.
Suzy : "Mommy! where are my toys?"
Mommy : " I gave them to the children across the street."
Suzy : "why??"
Mommy: "They were here this morning and the really liked them. They need them more than you do because they come from a poor family."
Suzy crying now : " but mommy ! you gave away my favorite toys! "
Mommy : "dont be a baby! you are too old to play with these anyway and these children are from a poor family! "

Suzy was in pain a very long time.
In fact it was such a traumatic experience it affected her deeply.
Mommy was pleased. Not only was she able to hurt her daughter deeply and enjoy her pain but she did it in such a way that it made her - Mommy- look good in front of neighbors.

That was her coverup story for the crime of hurting her daughter - "to help the neighbors kids."

POLITICAL STORY:
Angela Merkel invited lots of muslim men into her country and some of them were settled in german villages (population 60 german village got 300 of them) and some germans were kicked out of their apartments to give these young men proper housing.(true stories).
Pork eating germans flooded with all these muslim men what can possibly go wrong...no one cares what the germans actually feel and how their lives are literally turned upside down and affected by this and forever changed. What is certain is that many of them suffer. But...it does not matter to Angela because the refugee cover story is a perfect cover story for hurting the germans and Angela Merkel looks good.

Tell me if am wrong here.
But these stories are really about hurting people are they not?

Sometimes I see this "helping" of some random group on the outside as a cover story and the real intention seems to be to hurt a certain group of people closer to home .Is like a betrayal.Is definitely not loyalty.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Here are some examples of liberal "loyalty" and giving nature at work :

FAMILY STORY
8 year old Suzy returns home from school and finds her favorite toys gone.
Suzy : "Mommy! where are my toys?"
Mommy : " I gave them to the children across the street."
Suzy : "why??"
Mommy: "They were here this morning and the really liked them. They need them more than you do because they come from a poor family."
Suzy crying now : " but mommy ! you gave away my favorite toys! "
Mommy : "dont be a baby! you are too old to play with these anyway and these children are from a poor family! "

Suzy was in pain a very long time.
In fact it was such a traumatic experience it affected her deeply.
Mommy was pleased. Not only was she able to hurt her daughter deeply and enjoy her pain but she did it in such a way that it made her - Mommy- look good in front of neighbors.

That was her coverup story for the crime of hurting her daughter - "to help the neighbors kids."

I'm not going for smart-alecky here. Curious, genuinely want to know. Is this a true story?

 

[Ms_Diane]

According to @Kitsune, loyalty is one of the moral dimensions experienced by conservatives, but not by liberals:

"Loyalty/betrayal: this relates to in-group loyalty so it is the basis for ideas of patriotism, nationalism, pride and tradition. In my opinion this foundation is possibly the most problematic for liberals to understand. Because not only do they not understand this value, they actively fight it with all their might."
​

This definition is quite one-sided and lacking in nuance, to put it mildly. However, I can accept the notion that conservatives tend to feel this moral value somewhat more strongly than liberals, on average. But, it's certainly not the case that conservatives have a monopoly on "loyalty."

Huh. Interesting. Ok, so in Canada a lot of our national identity is based on being a nation of immigrants. That's why this idea is so interesting to me. What does loyalty mean, in terms of "in-group loyalty" and patriotism, nationalism, pride and tradition, in a country where so many of us are from other places? I think this is why I have the impression that it is not as much of an issue here. Maybe it comes from the difference between the melting pot and the tossed salad theories.

 

[SoTxBob]

I just like the meme.... seems to fit a lot of folks these days with all their whining....

 

[Mila_]

the majority of right wing conservatives I know are religious, and missionary work outside of the U.S is a major staple in their lives... So I have a hard time seeing it as a liberal thing.
Sending money to impoverished communities in other countries has always looked like a very conservative thing to me, for this reason. But that's just my view, I have a pastor evangelical father and a Very messianic Jewish mother (and yes they are long divorced haha). Father church is very dedicated to over seas charity and my mom sends more money and effort to Israel, but to her defense she is a teacher here in the US but will be moving to Israel shortly.
So any who, that's how my view is influenced

The practical side:

Missionary work isn't charity, it's proselytism. The difference is proselytism has a political nature: the goal is to convert people into christianity. So, in the case of say, Jehova's Witnesses, this is done so more people buy and sell the Watchtower which is published in over 250 languages (that's how many foreign countries contribute money to the Witnesses). In the case of mormonism, converts to mormonism all over the world donate money to their church, I read somewhere that the Mormon Church makes around 7 billion annually from donations and tithes, much of which comes from outside the US.

This is the same thing that happens with foreign aid. Why give foreign aid to allies instead of spending that money at home? And while there is tension there, you have to look at what the goal is. Giving money to allies is done to keep them on your side, because when shit hits the fan you need people who will be willing to fight with you against an enemy. So even though it might seem like you are helping others, in reality you are helping your own. This doesn't happen when you give foreign aid to your enemies like Obama has done, or when you fight against the wall for illegal immigrants to flood the country.

It is also a matter of priorities. The first thing the catholic Church does when they are short on money is to cancel missionary work. They will fight to keep their charity programs within their communities going no matter what, though. Surely there has to be a few jesuits out there doing the opposite, they are the left wing of the church after all, but this is the priority for most of the catholic church. And the same happens with foreign aid. If you have an emergency at home and you need funds, you should always prioritize that and cut foreign aid if you need to in order to keep your citizens safe. This is what loyalty means, that you put your own in-group's needs first. And secondly, that you defend those who defend you.

For the left none of this matters. It is "open borders or you are a racist" and "take in Syrian refugees even if they are beheading your citizens or you are an islamophobe". Same thing goes with adoption. Leftists are always applauding people who adopt kids from far away lands or who choose to foster over having their own babies. And if a white person says: "I would only adopt a white baby from my community" I am sure he would be labeled a racist. Even women who say they want to give birth to their own children before adopting are labeled as selfish by some crazy people on the left. It is all part of the same trend. A conservative gives priority to his in-group first, especially when the foreigner wants to hurt their people. The left doesn't, the left wants to help the foreigner even at the expense of their people, because to the left there is no such a thing as "my people". This is a very good example of what a disregard for loyalty looks like.

But we can do the abstract game too:

Globalism, which is what we are discussing in the end, is a leftist value because it is a part of the christian faith. Leftism is a crypto-sect of christianity with a "secular" coat of paint. The tenets of liberté/fraternité/egalité of the French Revolution are christian in nature, and the left is the child of the French Revolution (globalism=fraternité) Which is why you can find similarities like this... something christians do kinda rings a bell. The problem is, when you remove divinity out of the equation many of the ideas the left took from the christian faith end up being corrupted and taken in a dangerous direction to an unhealthy extreme. So it isn't really a mirror image what you see in missionary work, it is more of a distant echo.

So, for example, take egalité. The root is in christianism, in the gospels with the idea that we are all equal in Christ. What does "we are all equal in Christ" mean? That if and only if you accept Christ, then you will be equal to all other christians. It requires the person to convert in order to be an equal. And converting means that they accept the tenets of the christian faith, their moral values will align with the values of the christian community, it requires work and submission from the person who is being accepted into the community. But if you remove theology from the equation, if you rmeove "Christ" all you are left with is "we are all equal" like that, no matter who you are, where you are from, what your religion is, or what your morals are. That is why it is okay for the left to accept syrian muslims who behead christian priests. Christians would have rejected these people until they converted to the christian faith. Leftists embrace them as equals even when they bring a fucking rifle to Charlie Hebdos HQ.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

What does "we are all equal in Christ" mean? That if and only if you accept Christ, then you will be equal to all other christians.

So I guess that means Ann Coulter == Barack Hussein Obama. Brother and sister in Christ.

That's quite a mental backflip.

 

[LuckySmiles]

I'm not sure why I'm quoted... because I think you may be talking about a separate subject to what I was? I dunno... I'm confused now.

Missionary work costs a LOT of money, on top of the straight donating without travel that happens a lot. I wasn't saying that it's wrong or whatever, just pointing out why I disagreed with the idea that sending money overseas to help starving children is a primarily liberal thing. Just watch the T.V ads to sponsor a child, or the heaviest international relief funds... they are usually affiliated with a church and religious people are predominantly conservative and republican in the united states.

Now I'm also not saying that liberals don't donate to international charities, just pointing out what appears to be a major flaw in the idea that they are the only, or even primary source.

I know... I went off about stuff, but what I'm trying to point out is it's all related. And it's all the same point. It's not directed at anyone in particular. But it's all the same thing. Because the hypothetical suburban connecticut "liberal" that I'm talking about... is the same person who'll say to save all the refugees... and might talk crap to me... and will never consider joining the military or let her kid join the marines...

It's not about anyone or directed at anyone, but I think everyone can picture exactly the kind of personality I'm talking about. And it's related to every controversial issue out there.

 

[Osmia]

....What does loyalty mean, in terms of "in-group loyalty" and patriotism, nationalism, pride and tradition, in a country where so many of us are from other places?....

I think it depends on the context--i.e., it's relative. Even in places like Canada and the US, which are composed almost exclusively of immigrants, one tends to feel greater affiliation with immediate family, neighbors, co-workers, people of a similar socio-economic background, state/province, nation. This is just human nature, and seems to be a universal tendency. Even people that leave their roots far behind and move to the anonymous big city to start a career will find ways to affiliate with others more or less like themselves

As to the seeming irony of a nation of immigrants turning against the current crop of immigrants, it's a recurring feature of American life (what about Canada?). If you haven't already, watch the clip of Rachel Maddow that @justjoinedtopost put in one of his recent posts. Very illuminating.

While walking my dogs this morning, it occurred to me that at its core, Trump's campaign is really just about stopping immigration. All the other issues are just window dressing. Immigration is the main thing that gets Trump passionate, probably the only thing he sort of believes in. It seems to be the issue that really unites his diverse group of supporters. It's ironic in that if he were elected president, his immigration promises would be much less likely to be implemented than the rest of his platform, because he has so extravagantly over-promised.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

There is a time to go left, and there is a time to go right.
There is a time to be conservative, and there is a time to be liberal.

I wonder how many faux conservatives will cry one minute that we should be helping our own, then wail the next about foodstamps?

Conservatism has been overtaken by a political cult.

 

[LuckySmiles]

There is a time to go left, and there is a time to go right.
There is a time to be conservative, and there is a time to be liberal.

I wonder how many faux conservatives will cry one minute that we should be helping our own, then wail the next about foodstamps?

Conservatism has been overtaken by a political cult.

Everyone can agree there is a place for welfare, everyone can also agree that it's intended to be a temporary thing and that you have to work more towards eliminating the need for it than making it a permanent state.