I feel emotion and liberalism does have an argument for certain aspects of the human condition. But I say Logic trumps emotion 9 times out of 10 tbph

Logic without emotion is cold. Emotion without logic is capricious.

Capricious is the perfect word to describe the modern liberal iirc

(07-24-2014 12:51 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  Capricious is the perfect word to describe the modern liberal iirc

You recalled correctly.

They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

(07-24-2014 12:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

The assumption here is that "pro gay marriage" is the more logical position. For that to be true on also assumes there is *no* logic to the postion that when you open the door to redefine marriage it will not eaisly be shut after gay marraige comes through.

Two people, with different assumptions and priorities, can come to opposite sides of any issue.

(07-24-2014 12:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

Was it logical of you to assume that slavery comes with a confederacy?

(07-24-2014 01:08 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

The assumption here is that "pro gay marriage" is the more logical position. For that to be true on also assumes there is *no* logic to the postion that when you open the door to redefine marriage it will not eaisly be shut after gay marraige comes through.

Two people, with different assumptions and priorities, can come to opposite sides of any issue.

Gay marriage is the 1 time out of 10 that emotion trumps logic. To the vast majority people of the same sex coming together seems weird and gross. If you have ever been an outcast and are able to draw from that experience then you can fall on the right side of this issue though you may not of used logic to draw your conclusions..

(07-24-2014 01:08 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

The assumption here is that "pro gay marriage" is the more logical position. For that to be true on also assumes there is *no* logic to the postion that when you open the door to redefine marriage it will not eaisly be shut after gay marraige comes through.

Two people, with different assumptions and priorities, can come to opposite sides of any issue.

I never assumed that pro gay marriage was the more logical position. I'm just saying that the emotional response that that one position would trigger, could outweigh almost everything else.

Worded a bit differently, the same would apply to the left.

(07-24-2014 12:44 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  I feel emotion and liberalism does have an argument for certain aspects of the human condition. But I say Logic trumps emotion 9 times out of 10 tbph

If you want the right answer, yes.

But if you want to persuade people, then you go w/ emotion and rhetoric. 19th Amendment made that even worse.

(07-24-2014 01:19 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 01:08 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

The assumption here is that "pro gay marriage" is the more logical position. For that to be true on also assumes there is *no* logic to the postion that when you open the door to redefine marriage it will not eaisly be shut after gay marraige comes through.

Two people, with different assumptions and priorities, can come to opposite sides of any issue.

I never assumed that pro gay marriage was the more logical position. I'm just saying that the emotional response that that one position would trigger, could outweigh almost everything else.

Worded a bit differently, the same would apply to the left.

Fair enough... I read your post wrong...

Also, you remember when Sarah Palin came out all hokey with the "hockey mom" talk. That was meant to get an emotional response. So is talking about religion. So is parading your family around.

(07-24-2014 12:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

Are you implying that being staunchly religious (or the perception of) is based in emotion?

I think the problem with logic is people have divergence in its interpretation.

(07-24-2014 01:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Also, you remember when Sarah Palin came out all hokey with the "hockey mom" talk. That was meant to get an emotional response. So is talking about religion. So is parading your family around.

As I said... You need both to be a balanced person..

(07-24-2014 01:29 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

Are you implying that being staunchly religious (or the perception of) is based in emotion?

I think the problem with logic is people have divergence in its interpretation.

No. I was implying that being staunchly religious could get someone over the hump when they aren't necessarily the best candidate.

This is why I say that there's a big difference between The Best Candidate and The Best Person for Office.

(07-24-2014 01:29 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

Are you implying that being staunchly religious (or the perception of) is based in emotion?

I think the problem with logic is people have divergence in its interpretation.

No. I was implying that being staunchly religious could get someone over the hump when they aren't necessarily the best person for office.

This is why I say that there's a big difference between The Best Candidate and The Best Person for Office.

(07-24-2014 01:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 01:29 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

Are you implying that being staunchly religious (or the perception of) is based in emotion?

I think the problem with logic is people have divergence in its interpretation.

No. I was implying that being staunchly religious could get someone over the hump when they aren't necessarily the best person for office.

This is why I say that there's a big difference between The Best Candidate and The Best Person for Office.

Much like the participants in a NCAA Football National Championship game.

(07-24-2014 01:35 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 01:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 01:29 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

Are you implying that being staunchly religious (or the perception of) is based in emotion?

I think the problem with logic is people have divergence in its interpretation.

No. I was implying that being staunchly religious could get someone over the hump when they aren't necessarily the best person for office.

This is why I say that there's a big difference between The Best Candidate and The Best Person for Office.

Much like the participants in a NCAA Football National Championship game.

We'll see, but you're probably correct. It's still not an NCAA championship.

This essay deals w/ the subject

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/24/cl...ore-113410

(07-24-2014 01:16 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 01:08 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  They both operate largely off of emotion. You can't win elections on logic. It's why a few speeches have people here advocating Cruz or Carson for president and got us Obama. It's the reason candidates take photo ops.

Do you think conservatives (let's limit it to Republicans for sake of argument) would vote for someone in a primary as smart as a whip, small government, but pro-gay marriage over someone with half of the record, but staunchly religious?

The assumption here is that "pro gay marriage" is the more logical position. For that to be true on also assumes there is *no* logic to the postion that when you open the door to redefine marriage it will not eaisly be shut after gay marraige comes through.

Two people, with different assumptions and priorities, can come to opposite sides of any issue.

Gay marriage is the 1 time out of 10 that emotion trumps logic. To the vast majority people of the same sex coming together seems weird and gross. If you have ever been an outcast and are able to draw from that experience then you can fall on the right side of this issue though you may not of used logic to draw your conclusions..

You just explained the entire liberal base.