Is Your Brain Liberal or Conservative?

[Jojo Bags]

It says I have a Democrat brain.  NOT!  I took it again, bit I answered affirmative to the gross out questions.  If you're squeamish then you are conservative.  It doesn't take into account 5 Yeats in the Army and 13 as a cop.  It takes a lot to gross me out.  I can discuss what's for lunch while standing over a dead body.

[nbent412]

I got 52% liberal and 48% conservative...thats probably not too far off. I'm fairly moderate, but if I had to choose for my self, I'd say its more like 65-70% Conservative and 30-35% liberal

[Sadliers]

The test is inconclusive because it is not a squeamish factor that makes a liberal a liberal nor what makes a conservative a conservative.

[anatess2]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 7:39 PM, Vort said:

So if you are viscerally disgusted by Hillary Clinton, profoundly disgusted by Donald Trump, and deeply disgusted by Bernie Sanders, I suspect that tags you as unenlightened.

See this here...

This is why I've been getting vocal about American politics even as I'm neck deep embroiled in the Philippine one.

In that sentence there, you just ranked Trump beneath Clinton.  So... it is HIGHLY LIKELY that Trump is going to win the nomination which... if the elections is up to Mormons, puts Hillary in the White House.

You guys are crazy if you'd rather see Clinton on that seat than Trump.  So yeah, Americans... .WHERE'S THE NEVERHILLARY MOVEMENT, HUH????

[Vort]

On 3/24/2016 at 6:32 AM, anatess2 said:

In that sentence there, you just ranked Trump beneath Clinton.

You are mistaken.

[Guest]

On 3/24/2016 at 7:32 AM, anatess2 said:

 if the elections is up to Mormons, puts Hillary in the White House.

[Guest]

My keyboard is not working right... but anatess seems to assume that hilary has the nomination in the bag, or that mormons in general believe that she will get the nomination, which many of us do not. 

[Guest MormonGator]

19 hours ago, Eowyn said:

My keyboard is not working right... but anatess seems to assume that hilary has the nomination in the bag, or that mormons in general believe that she will get the nomination, which many of us do not. 

Anatess and I agree on that. Hillary will win in a landslide because Trump will split the vote. 

[Guest]

Do you think Bernie is out of the running, then?

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, Eowyn said:

Do you think Bernie is out of the running, then?

Yes.

[Guest MormonGator]

14 hours ago, Eowyn said:

Do you think Bernie is out of the running, then?

 Yes. The delegates just are not there.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 Yes. The delegates just are not there.

I wouldn't count him out just yet.  He won three states last week, including  Washington which was a big one. He has the potential to catch up. A lot may depend on the Super Delegates...they have pledged their votes to Hillary, but if the popular vote goes to Bernie (and at this point that is possible still) ....will they switch? 

Time will tell but nothing is certain at this point. From what I'm reading Trump is not a sure thing. He may have trouble getting the 1200 (or so) delegate votes he needs.  If he doesn't, Cruz still has a chance.

Edited March 28, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I wouldn't count him out just yet.  He one three states last week, he has the potential to catch up. A lot may depend on the Super Delegates...they have pledgedone their votes to Hillary, but if the popular vote goes to Bernie (and at this point that is possible still) ....will they switch? 

Time will tell but nothing is certain at this point. From what I'm reading Trump is not a sure thing. He may have trouble getting the 1200 (or so) delegate votes he needs.  If he doesn't, Cruz still has a chance.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/superdelegate.htm

All very good points (as usual!) Lit, though how the conventions and delegates work is a little complicated. 

Edited March 28, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

You're telling me! I won't embarass myself by telling you all publicly how lost I am in this process. Suffice it to say I know I have much to learn. So I've been reading! The NYT has an interesting page with tons of info, and that is where I got a lot of my ideas. There was one other article...I forget the source (note to self....sources are important, pay more attention).  I'll post them later when I'm not on my phone.

And THANKS for the link. I will read it when I have a bit more time, I definitely need the help.

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I wouldn't count him out just yet.  He won three states last week, including  Washington which was a big one. He has the potential to catch up. A lot may depend on the Super Delegates...they have pledged their votes to Hillary, but if the popular vote goes to Bernie (and at this point that is possible still) ....will they switch? 

Time will tell but nothing is certain at this point. From what I'm reading Trump is not a sure thing. He may have trouble getting the 1200 (or so) delegate votes he needs.  If he doesn't, Cruz still has a chance.

The 3 states last week were all Caucuses.  Bernie edges out Hillary on caucuses because he has the "excitement" factor that can pull a big turnout in caucuses.

There are only 3 Caucuses left for a total of 28 delegates.  Even if we give all 28 delegates to Bernie, he will still need to get at least 57% of all the other States to win the pledged delegates.  Remember, there are no winner-take-all states in the Democrat elections.  Hillary only needs less than 800 votes to clench the pledged delegates.  And we still have New York (247 delegates), Pennsylvania (189 delegates), California (475 delegates), and New Jersey (126 delegates) to go... all 4 big delegate pool states all breaking for Hillary by at least 20 statistical points.

And that's not counting the Superdelegates who will not break out of the Hillary camp unless Bernie edges Hillary out of the popular vote.  He can't use the Superdelegates to "pad" his votes if he runs short of the 2026 pledged delegates he needs to win over Hillary.

So... the Las Vegas betting zoo only put 3% chance of Bernie becoming the nominee and that is mostly because of the chance that Hillary is going to be indicted (which she won't be as long as Obama is President... it's a classic case of y'owe me).

 

Cruz (and even Kasich) has a path to the nomination only because of the majority vote requirement of winning the Republican nomination.  Republican side doesn't have super delegates.  Rather, they have a majority of representative votes (the exact same way an electoral college works).  Majority means over 50%.  So, Cruz may need 70% of the rest of the delegates (mathematically possible due to winner-take-all states) to get to 51% of the vote, but he needs much less than that with Kasich in the running to deny Trump of getting to 51%.  Kasich has no mathematical path to the nomination on the first ballot, but he can deny Trump and Cruz from getting to the 51% too.  So, the convention can still possibly be up for grabs to the candidate who can persuade a delegate to switch their vote after the first ballot to climb up to the 51% mark.

Edited March 28, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks Anatess, I readily admit that you know more about politics than I do. I think my sources are reliable though...as I mentioned to Gator I'll post the articles later. 

Thanks for helping me learn more about this complicated process.

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You're telling me! I won't embarass myself by telling you all publicly how lost I am in this process. Suffice it to say I know I have much to learn. So I've been reading! The NYT has an interesting page with tons of info, and that is where I got a lot of my ideas. There was one other article...I forget the source (note to self....sources are important, pay more attention).  I'll post them later when I'm not on my phone.

And THANKS for the link. I will read it when I have a bit more time, I definitely need the help.

 The New York Times is among my daily reading. The other is the Wall Street Journal. One comes from the left one comes from the right. It's good to read both sides and make up your mind. 

[NeuroTypical]

I used to do the same thing with Arabnews.com and Haaretz.com.  Their world news pages usually were talking about the same stories.

[prisonchaplain]

I took the test, and, like many here, came out with a brain that tracks more liberal than my politics actually are.  My take away?  Conservatism must be the really smart, correct pathway to support in politics if so many liberal-minded people vote that way.  We actually had to swim against the stride of our own natural way of thinking to reach the conclusions we did.  Liberalism would be the pathway of least resistance and thought...and yet, here I am, voting in a moderately conservative style. 

[Guest MormonGator]

21 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I took the test, and, like many here, came out with a brain that tracks more liberal than my politics actually are.  My take away?  Conservatism must be the really smart, correct pathway to support in politics if so many liberal-minded people vote that way.  We actually had to swim against the stride of our own natural way of thinking to reach the conclusions we did.  Liberalism would be the pathway of least resistance and thought...and yet, here I am, voting in a moderately conservative style. 

So much truth to this. Generally-If you follow your heart, you'll end up liberal. If you follow your head, you'll end up conservative. That doesn't mean conservatives are heartless and liberals are stupid. It's just a generality that  happens to have some truth to it. There is a reason bleeding heart liberals call themselves "bleeding heart liberals" 

[prisonchaplain]

If bleeding heart liberals are so tender and loving why is it that conservatives give more to charity?

There actually is an answer.  FAIRNESS.  Why should I have to give money, when the rich don't? Further, is it not condescending to those in need that they must come with hands out to a church, or other private entity, when they are entitled, as human beings, to a decent standard of living?

And there you have it. Liberal-bleeding hearted-but-tight-fisted vs. Conservative-level-headed-philanthropists.  :-)

[Guest MormonGator]

34 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

If bleeding heart liberals are so tender and loving why is it that conservatives give more to charity?

There actually is an answer.  FAIRNESS.  Why should I have to give money, when the rich don't? Further, is it not condescending to those in need that they must come with hands out to a church, or other private entity, when they are entitled, as human beings, to a decent standard of living?

And there you have it. Liberal-bleeding hearted-but-tight-fisted vs. Conservative-level-headed-philanthropists.  :-)

Oh, I agree PC. Usually the bleeding hearts are only tolerant and loving-to those they already agree with. Case in point: I have a tolerant "friend" who talked about how he'd be okay with Christian pastors killing themselves. I was mortified. I asked him, "If I said that to a gay man dealing with depression, how would you feel?" No answer. He also claims to be "open minded" but when presented with evidence that doesn't fit his pre-concinved bias, he calls you "ignorant." This isn't uncommon.  

[zil]

Quote

Is Your Brain Liberal or Conservative?

"If thy [left brain] offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee..."

(Apparently I didn't get enough sleep last night, cuz this is the first thing that came into my mind when I read the title of this thread.)