Its not unusual to have differences and debates about public policy, or administrative methods. In fact, its probably wholesome. But in politics, the consequences of these decisions often translate into economic or social consequences.

Again, there’s nothing wrong with this, and its probably all for the better, too. But when champions for or against a particular philosophy make it their job, their career, then it gets ugly. They feel the need to personalize it, and to promote their ideas by demonizing the other, often in areas that have nothing to do with the issue or controversy involved.

For example, if someone doesn’t believe in global warming because they are not convinced by the evidence, or because they feel we haven’t been studying the problem long enough, or with sufficiently accurate tools, then I may not agree with them, but I don’t take it personally, I don’t feel personally threatened by them.

But if my opponents are convinced my stance on climate is due to my being part of some sinister conspiracy dedicated to taking away their freedom and their property, and feels that that justifies whatever it takes to silence and defeat me and my views, then I do take it personally.

Or to put it another way, even if it means stretching the metaphor to the point of breaking…I don’t believe there’s much difference theologically between the Dalai Lama
and Jerry Falwell. They’re both dead wrong as far as I’m concerned.

But Jerry and his kind just seem much more threatening to me than the little Himalayan monk. What’s the difference? Its not in my hate, its in theirs.

I don’t have more to add but for some reason a song comes to mind. Not in these lyrics but in the background of the song you hear “it’s a competitive world”.

Depeche Mode – “People Are People”

People are people so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully
So we’re different colours
And we’re different creeds
And different people have different needs
It’s obvious you hate me
Though I’ve done nothing wrong
I never even met you
So what could I have done
I can’t understand
What makes a man
Hate another man
Help me understand
People are people so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully
Help me understand
Now you’re punching and you’re kicking
And you’re shouting at me
I’m relying on your common decency
So far it hasn’t surfaced
But I’m sure it exists
It just takes a while to travel
From your head to your fist
I can’t understand
What makes a man
Hate another man
Help me understand

Hey, how are the plans for the wall coming along?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jEVCX-d4Zk

And where in the Bible does God say this? Do you really believe all that self-aggrandizing crap about how Cons are all noble, bold entrepreneurs while Libs are sniveling little bookworms and girly scholar-babies who can’t even park their bicycles straight when they get to the campus.

No, in my opinion (although I am willing to admit it is nothing but an opinion) conservatives are a bunch of shopkeeper wannabees who see themselves as Captains of Industry but that deep down inside can’t accept most of them are just working stiffs and wage slaves like the rest of us and they haven’t got the courage or insight to admit it to themselves, much less to anyone else.

And when asked why they don’t run their own successful enterprises and sign the paychecks for their employees, and do something useful with their lives in the pursuit they feel they are so qualified in, they always use the excuse that leftist politicians and government regulators make it impossible for them to bloom as the true movers and shakers they see themselves as. They are nobodies because the liberals ate their homework.

As for the IQ stuff, who is even talking about that? IQ, like ability to take risks, probably has absolutely nothing to do with political ideology, one way or the other. Even if it did, I can’t imagine how you would go about proving it statistically.

What I do believe is that smart people know why they are, or are not, successful in their chosen field or in life, and have come to terms with it. They have the introspection and self-knowledge and intellectual honesty to confront their own shortcomings without making excuses and blaming scapegoats.

If they are failures, they know why, and they naturally keep it to themselves, regardless of their political opinions. But if they are fools as well, they try and find some conspiracy they can blame it all on, some enemy they can point to who must be working against them and stabbing them in the back.

You know, somebody like the blacks, or the illegals, or the Commies, or the Liberals, or the Jews….Its always someone else, its never them that’s to blame, because they are obviously superior people, more ambitious, more hard-working, more risk-taking, more creative, more law-abiding, more independent, more patriotic, more religious, more courageous, more possessed of common sense, whatever the hell THAT is.

Sheeeeeeiiiit!

As far as liberals having a higher IQ? I have to laugh. I hear all the time on NPR that IQ tests mean nothing. They’re not a true measure of cognitive ability. “There is no reliable average”.

Humanities and behavioral/social sciences majors are more likely to be liberal, business students are usually conservative (but not always, I once knew a BusAd major who was a communist, he just wanted to fully understand how his enemy thought and what motivated him). Mathematicians, on the other hand, as a rule, show no preferences. (That was pointed out to me by a very conservative mathematician).

Lawyers will work for either side, but still fake the orgasms very convincingly.

Market demands and social conditions may play some role in this, but I also believe individual psychology does too. For example, engineers and scientists both may have a talent for science and math, but scientists truly love nature and figuring out how it works, while engineers are interested in practical solutions to immediate problems, they don’t care how it works as long as they can use it. This is not a criticism. Doctors are engineers, not scientists, their primary job is to save lives and reduce pain, not understand anatomy and physiology.

A truly successful scientist wants to move up in his career by attacking more complex and important scientific questions, while engineers can’t wait to get out of the lab and into management.

There is NO WAY this:

is the leading candidate of a thoughtful group of people….

ONE party is denying science and reality, one side has candidates denying evolution and global warming. One side really IS the ‘party of stupid’
One party has officials that repeatedly claim rape victims cannot get pregnant.

Like it or not, education matters- and it matters more today than it ever has in the past. Your candidates are not just intentionally stupid, they are aggressively attacking science, and proudly denying reality.

The numbers show that the conservatives have a lower level of education, and your candidates show how dangerous that is.

“A more interesting question to ask – in my mind – is what majors tend to produce more Democrats than Republicans and then to see the demand for each major and how the changes in market demands either affect the ideological differences in those majors”

Here

I don’t understand your need to constantly try to show your side as more educated or intelligent. Actually, I do…