Conservatives believe the truth supports conservative beliefs, and liberals believe it supports liberal beliefs. This type of comment is about the same as just saying "I am a liberal", which almost by definition means you think liberal beliefs are true. It doesn't add much to the conversation.
Well, no. It means when facts are tested by objective means, more of them align with liberal beliefs than conservative beliefs. Unless you believe that facts can't be objectively tested?
If you comment with evidence showing that, you might be enriching the comment section. Simply having a bunch of people leave unsubstantiated comments like "truth has a conservative bias" or "truth has a liberal bias" is only adding noise. And it shows a certain lack of self-awareness.
I am on the US left by any survey measurable by my principles, while not from US, this logic also sounds juvenile. Stooping to the level that a single person should be able to represent a whole side, did you see Joe at the debates?
Oh boy. Are you trying to do the "both sides" thing? Joe was pretty bad at the debates. His voice was weak. He stuttered. He misspoke. It was bad. And then what happened? He stepped down as the party's candidate, and the rest is history, as they say.
That is quite different from making up wild stories about immigrants eating cats, fabricating nonsense about widespread election fraud / stolen elections, suggesting injecting bleach is a sufficient remedy for coronavirus, sharpie-ing atop hurricane maps to prove previous incorrect statements were totally real because... look: sharpie! And this man has never had more widespread support.
These. Parties. Are. Not. The. Same.
By the way, it wasn't just one man making this "immigrants are eating our pets" thing. In addition to Trump, other prominent Republicans such as J.D. Vance, Marc Molinaro, and Laura Loomer also repeated this lie.
Statistically, most US seems to believe that the Democratic party is obviously worse at the Federal level. They just lost an election on every metric, although they did win the lost-to-Trump-twice award after almost a decade of opportunities to come up with an effective counter-Trump strategy.
He's been the undisputed head of the "conservative" party in the U.S. for 10 years now. And just won his second election, this time winning the popular vote. If that's not mainstream, I don't know what is.
Accurate. It's difficult to argue that the mainstream US Republican isn't a populist now. Twice is not a fluke.
And ever since the 70s there's been a tension between the blocks of the Republican party: fiscal business conservatives, foreign policy hawks, and rural/religious conservatives.
After couple decades getting the final group fired up, they decided they wanted to drive. And the primary system rewarded them.
> the final group fired up, they decided they wanted to drive. And the primary system rewarded them.
I've been an outside observer of US politics for many decades, I'd characterize what happened not so much as the primary system rewarding them but more as a consummate grifter and snakeoil carpetbagger fooling them into thinking they've won.
They got fired up, they got the candidate they voted for, I'm not sure the expected rewards will follow as hoped and expected.
I have definitely heard conservatives complain that reality has a left-wing bias. Not in quite those words, but close enough that you wonder if it’s possible to die of cognitive dissonance.
