2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
also, while everyone here has heard of greenpeace and i don't think many of you have heard of ducks unlimited - that's not because of size, it's again because greenpeace spends money on promoting greenpeace because they think that the culture wars is half the battle whereas ducks unlimited spends it directly on their mission
ducks unlimited brings in 200-300 million a year in donations
and here's greenpeace 25-35 million a year in donations
Regarding which side donates to charity more or is more caring regarding the underprivileged: this is a far more complicated and nuanced issue than we are giving credit for here.
Rickroll mentions that right wingers are more likely to donate to environmental causes, which is surprising to me but makes sense within the context that he gives. One can argue that they are only donating to such causes because it is in their self-interests to do so. Same thing with church donations: one can argue that people feel like they are forced to tithe to the church, rather than something that people willingly do out of the goodness of their hearts. If it is purely out of self-interest that these people make these donations, is it really evidence of being "charitable" as we understand the word?
The same arguments can be made for the left. A 22 year old kid with $150K in student debt is majorly in favor of student loan forgiveness. Is that because they are just really charitable, or is it because they stand to gain a lot from such a policy? Somebody pays extra for an electric vehicle. Perhaps it is due to an altruistic notion of helping the environment, or alternatively, maybe it is just an example of conspicuous consumption.
I really don't think you are going to find definitive proof of altruism being more common on one side of the political spectrum than the other.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, my argument was with the volume religious donations being a barometer of, well, anything, except religiosity I suppose. I wasn't commenting on left wing charities or right wing charities or motivations for donating to them in general.
btw rightwing people in the USA are more generous, donate more, than liberals. If we want to talk about empathy
Abstract
Political ideology not only influences political activities, but also apolitical fields such as charitable giving. However, empirical studies regarding political ideology and charitable giving have yielded mixed results. To find out the effect size and explain the variation in effect sizes, we deploy a meta-analysis to esti
Ok so the research didn’t say that conservatives donate more money
It says the research suggested they did. A suggestion doesn’t mean one way or the other
Why you quoted this and argued about it is beyond me
Ok so the research didn’t say that conservatives donate more money
It says the research suggested they did. A suggestion doesn’t mean one way or the other
Why you quoted this and argued about it is beyond me
Welcome back!
Also, I agree with d2's response to your post. A suggestion doesn't mean one way or the other? wat???
Just for the avoidance of doubt, my argument was with the volume religious donations being a barometer of, well, anything, except religiosity I suppose. I wasn't commenting on left wing charities or right wing charities or motivations for donating to them in general.
This is why Luciom's point kind of falls apart. Right wingers are more religious than left wingers, and therefore more likely to tithe. A tithe is seen as an obligation to the church, and probably not the kind of thing that one should be pointing to when talking about charity.
On the other hand, if the church was taking special donations to fund a soup kitchen or something along those lines, that would be more analogous to the charity that we are talking about. Churches do sometimes organize such charity, but then again, so do secular organizations.
"The last final collapse of Trump's mental state." - George Conway
This is why Luciom's point kind of falls apart. Right wingers are more religious than left wingers, and therefore more likely to tithe. A tithe is seen as an obligation to the church, and probably not the kind of thing that one should be pointing to when talking about charity.
On the other hand, if the church was taking special donations to fund a soup kitchen or something along those lines, that would be more analogous to the charity tha
Sure, my point is that the soup kitchens are a rounding error when seen in the context of tithes and the Kenneth Copelands of the world.
Trump’s exit strategy.
Time to, revoke his bail, confiscate his passport?
unclear why the Marxists are angry today:
Harris chances keep growing, CPI comes out lower than expected, truth social tanking in the market, Ukraine making ground inside Russia, UK playing the censorship and arresting book the way every democrat loves it, the EU threatening Musk because he dares to have a live session with Trump...
everything is going perfectly for you guys, why the anger? can't you celebrate winning? why do you hate life so
Is this one of those allegedly intelligent Luciom posts I keep hearing about?
Anyway, Marxists dislike Kopmala Harris and don't give a flying **** about Truth Social. That may explain part of your confusion.
The right censors more books and general works of art than the left does, throughout "The West". This is a clear fact. Elon Musk is one of the most evil humans alive on this planet and deserves far worse than having the EU make some toothless threats towards him.
"Everything" "going perfectly for you guys" would look more like Musk rotting in prison (while taking many minor drug offenders and others out), the implementation of a 150% wealth tax, and the implementation of a single payer universal health-care program. None of these things are even remotely likely to happen in the U.S. Hopefully, this will explain our "anger" (which, of course, pales in comparison to the expressions of anger from conservatives about trans people and immigrants and etc., etc.)
I gave some figures. Just the Mormons (LDS church) take in $10bn+ annually in tithes, and that number is a conservative estimate. Do you think soup kitchens and other such efforts are more than a rounding error on that number alone?
"Everything is going so well for Marxists in the U.S. That's why the guy they call "Genocide Joe" is President!" -Luciom, intelligently
Lol. So we've had "Kamabla" from the right and "Kopmala" from the left. I'm just waiting for some wit from the center to come up with "Kamala Toe" or some variation of that.
We've been calling her Kopmala forever. It's a reference to all the years during which she was the top prosecutor (i.e., "top cop") in California and threw many people in cages for minor drug offenses (some of which she herself later admitted to!)
She's a bad person. Less bad than Donald Trump, though, which is cool.
lol, the single most overriding issues for right-wingers are incessantly denigrating transgender people and forcibly deporting immigrants, spare me this nonsense about "empathy."
We've been calling her Kopmala forever. It's a reference to all the years during which she was the top prosecutor (i.e., "top cop") in California and threw many people in cages for minor drug offenses (some of which she herself later admitted to!)
She's a bad person. Less bad than Donald Trump, though, which is cool.
Was Lenin a good person?
I think if you say "empathy with" rather than "empathy for", that's enough of a shibboleth to implicitly get you in to the "cool kids who know how to use 'empathy' correctly" club.
My instinct would have been to say that "empathy with" and "empathy for" are both acceptable if you are referring to empathy with/for a group.
When referring to a specific person, it would be more natural imo to say "empathy for."
My instinct would have been to say that "empathy with" and "empathy for" are both acceptable if you are referring to empathy with/for a group.
When referring to a specific person, it would be more natural imo to say "empathy for."
A cursory Google search seems to favour "with":
https://www.google.com/search?q=empathy+...
"Empathy with" also sounds more natural to me than "empathy for".
We've been calling her Kopmala forever. It's a reference to all the years during which she was the top prosecutor (i.e., "top cop") in California and threw many people in cages for minor drug offenses (some of which she herself later admitted to!)
She's a bad person. Less bad than Donald Trump, though, which is cool.
Really? How many people total did she imprison for minor drug offenses? Make sure to cite the source of your numbers.
unclear why the Marxists are angry today:
Harris chances keep growing, CPI comes out lower than expected, truth social tanking in the market, Ukraine making ground inside Russia, UK playing the censorship and arresting book the way every democrat loves it, the EU threatening Musk because he dares to have a live session with Trump...
everything is going perfectly for you guys, why the anger? can't you celebrate winning? why do you hate life so
Calls everyone who doesn’t agree with him a Marxist
Throws a tantrum when he’s called Mussolini
Atta boy, Corporal
With the "copy" thing you reveal your ideology in ways you probably don't realize.
The idea that someone can be someone else copy without having the same DNA, parents, relatives, and childhood experiences is... objectively absurd.
Immigrants can't be a copy of you. Nor can other citizens for that matter.
You don't exit as an empty vessel , in a blank state, as a "soul" identical to others. You only exist as the unbroken chain of DNA that star
Ho boy .
QE were talking about being jobless , unskilled , poor etc which is not solely an immigrant a thing …
How t f u ending up understanding dna in there …
