Why are conservatives happier than liberals in general?is it religion?

[BADecker]

All Trump did "to stand up to China" was taxing Americans with tariffs and lying that China's gonna pay for it

Right. He did nothing. He didn't even attempt to build a wall, when there's a perfectly serviceable mid-oceanic ridge literally* staring you in the face.

It would be child's play to use this as the foundation for your wall... as I'm sure there's no shortage of underage immigrant aquatic labourers willing to work below minimum wage. What's the deal, Trump? Why no wall?

https://i.imgur.com/UL0Dvwn.jpg

*figuratively

Trump saw to it that the wall was built in Texas - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Trump%27s+wall+in+Texas&t=ffab&ia=web. Because of the election fraud, he wasn't around to complete it.

[1715239743]

1715239743

[1715239743]

1715239743

[1715239743]

1715239743

[1715239743]

1715239743

[libertasbella]

A conservative mindet generally entails that you, yourself, are responsible for your own well-being and happiness. In contrast, a liberal tends to believe that society and the state have a duty to take care of them. When you believe you have the obligation to improve your own circumstances, you generally do – hence happier conservatives.

[_Miracle]

The meanings of the terms for liberals and conservatives have been changing for years, the Trump era brought to light just how twisted up the terms have become.

I am a liberal in the sense of individual freedom and conservative when considering how much government should interfere with the lives of its citizens.

I would be at a Black Lives Matters Protest or standing up for LGBTQ rights before cheerleading any TikiTorch fool whining about their loss of standing in the 'perceived' current hierarchy (which is exactly what it is---a loss of importance in their own personal identity).

No it is not religion, many liberals (in the sense that even you are using) have deep faith, most of them simply lack the hate for gays when practicing their love for God.

During the 2016 election I read The Righteous mind by Jonathan Haidt mostly to buffer how extreme I felt most of my friends were getting on either side.
And BTW I may have lost 2 of my closest friends to Q-ness and Trumpism.
It's interesting to see right wingers talk about how oppressed they are right now, concerned about getting "canceled" yet continuing to deny that an entire segment of our (American) population have long had this experience.

We need to stand up for each other and stop pretending their are 2 sides---stop allowing ourselves to be divided by 2 parties more interested in perpetuating themselves instead of protecting 'our' framework for freedom.

[dalmtainac_sam]

A conservative mindet generally entails that you, yourself, are responsible for your own well-being and happiness. In contrast, a liberal tends to believe that society and the state have a duty to take care of them. When you believe you have the obligation to improve your own circumstances, you generally do – hence happier conservatives.

Yes i completely agree with you.Liberals expect someone else to help them become more happier.Only you can make you happy,i also i agree with random dude upwards who said that social media is destroying young people minds.You always get this pictures on instagram,facebook etc. of expensive houses,cars and everything else, so young people who cant afford that things tend to go into depression.

[BADecker]

Wow! If we can have computer generated presidents, that means that we can have all kinds of other computer generated things... maybe even computer generated selves. For example. Look through the laws that pertain to people. They all say something like, "No person shall..." do this or that. When you look up the word "person" in their definitions, none of it included men or women. That's because "person" is like computer generated. Of course, if a man or woman accepts that he is a computer generated person, then he/she is one. That's how they get you to fine you with their stupid laws.


Computer-Generated Presidents

To prepare readers for marvels and innovations, I offer this piece.

Since we live in a virtual age, the image rules. A substitute for the thing itself is acceptable in many venues. If the government can spend $6 trillion it doesn't have to bail out the population from a virus that doesn't exist—$2 trillion more than the cost of World War 2—what ISN'T possible?

I can see CNN leading the way, with this sort of announcement from CEO, Jaspar X Pucker:

"Today—after consultation with our attorneys—we make this legal ruling: Our use of the term 'President' will cover a range of potential meanings. For example, it could mean 'the committee that hovers behind the Occupant of the Oval Office and decides policy, on behalf of which policy the Occupant acts a conduit (to the public)'." 

"That would be one meaning. But 'President' could also mean a computer generated image (CGI) of the Oval Office Occupant, when that image delivers what the Occupant WOULD HAVE delivered, were he present."

"Here is our FAQ on the subject":

Would the CGI image of the President have to resemble the President?

Yes. We will render an exact likeness.

CNN could decide when to deploy a CGI image of the President?

Of course. That's the whole point. But we will maintain a close relationship with the committee that hovers behind the Occupant of the Oval Office, to ensure we are accurately presenting official policy.

Is it possible that, in a single instant of time, several CGI Presidents could simultaneously appear in different locations speaking to audiences?

Yes. Getting out the message(s) is the first priority.