|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency.
they've been calling them that because it's true, especially from a comparative standpoint.
it's also quite clearly true that republican's aren't as good on women and minority issues. you're calling it tripe means nothing, you're simply using objecting to being called out on the failings of republicans; and trying to deflect by claiming true things are merely talking points (which would imply they have no real validity to them). as usual, you've got nothing but lies and trolling. go away.
|
|
|
On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency.
You're regularly on the defensive about what people call Republicans but what I can't tell is how much of the mudslinging you resent: in this case, do you actually think Republicans are pro-science (i.e. Dems have it completely wrong) or are Republicans "anti-science" but not to the degree where Dems should whining about it.
I mean, you have the Trump administration trying to appoint someone to federal judgeship who hasn't even tried a case, nominate another individual for USDA who has zero science background, appoint someone to the EPA who is clearly against everything the department stands for, etc. Not to mention a tax bill that hurts graduate students immensely. There's evidently a number of points one could argue that Republicans are anti-science.
So I ask you Danglars, in what ways are Republicans pro-science? Just name off 1 or 2 points and I'll even google the rest.
|
On November 20 2017 06:52 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. You're regularly on the defensive about what people call Republicans but what I can't tell is how much of the mudslinging you resent: in this case, do you actually think Republicans are pro-science (i.e. Dems have it completely wrong) or are Republicans "anti-science" but not to the degree where Dems should whining about it. I mean, you have the Trump administration trying to appoint someone to federal judgeship who hasn't even tried a case, nominate another individual for USDA who has zero science background, appoint someone to the EPA who is clearly against everything the department stands for, etc. Not to mention a tax bill that hurts graduate students immensely. There's evidently a number of points one could argue that Republicans are anti-science. So I ask you Danglars, in what ways are Republicans pro-science? Just name off 1 or 2 points and I'll even google the rest.
I'll bet they fund studies to show that unborn babies feel pain or some other bullshit so they can further suppress women's control over themselves. Does that count as science?
|
On November 20 2017 06:34 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis. Climate Change? Clean coal? When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes. As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called? The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology. Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based I get that you like to make statements that are nothing more then empty talking points with no basis in reality but you do realize that this administration is the one hiring non-scientists for jobs that used to only go to scientists and trying to purge scientists from various panels. That isnt some debatable point by the way its a thing they are actively doing because there solution when science disagrees with there position is to silence the scientists.
I respond to partisan talking points with partisan talking points sometimes. Particularly when the author pretends to be objective.
|
On November 20 2017 06:52 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. You're regularly on the defensive about what people call Republicans but what I can't tell is how much of the mudslinging you resent: in this case, do you actually think Republicans are pro-science (i.e. Dems have it completely wrong) or are Republicans "anti-science" but not to the degree where Dems should whining about it. I mean, you have the Trump administration trying to appoint someone to federal judgeship who hasn't even tried a case, nominate another individual for USDA who has zero science background, appoint someone to the EPA who is clearly against everything the department stands for, etc. Not to mention a tax bill that hurts graduate students immensely. There's evidently a number of points one could argue that Republicans are anti-science. So I ask you Danglars, in what ways are Republicans pro-science? Just name off 1 or 2 points and I'll even google the rest.
I think pro-science and anti-science are both partisan idiocy in modern times. If you want to debate particular appointments or policy positions, make a post and make your case. Opening with the basest of propagandistic viewpoints lets others know you’re just another partisan slinging your lines. I’d say the same to any Republican who goes forth saying “You like killing babies and hating on straight white men, you bigoted murderers.” Women and minorities or pro and anti-science operate in similar spheres. Not useful and not a fertile ground for debate.
|
Ok let's try it this way:
Danglars, do you believe that Scott Pruitt is qualified to manage the EPA, and do you acknowledge the possibility that his personal politics might interfere with his ability to be the most effective administrator possible for the agency?
|
On November 20 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 06:52 NeoIllusions wrote:On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. You're regularly on the defensive about what people call Republicans but what I can't tell is how much of the mudslinging you resent: in this case, do you actually think Republicans are pro-science (i.e. Dems have it completely wrong) or are Republicans "anti-science" but not to the degree where Dems should whining about it. I mean, you have the Trump administration trying to appoint someone to federal judgeship who hasn't even tried a case, nominate another individual for USDA who has zero science background, appoint someone to the EPA who is clearly against everything the department stands for, etc. Not to mention a tax bill that hurts graduate students immensely. There's evidently a number of points one could argue that Republicans are anti-science. So I ask you Danglars, in what ways are Republicans pro-science? Just name off 1 or 2 points and I'll even google the rest. I think pro-science and anti-science are both partisan idiocy in modern times. If you want to debate particular appointments or policy positions, make a post and make your case. Opening with the basest of propagandistic viewpoints lets others know you’re just another partisan slinging your lines. I’d say the same to any Republican who goes forth saying “You like killing babies and hating on straight white men, you bigoted murderers.” Women and minorities or pro and anti-science operate in similar spheres. Not useful and not a fertile ground for debate.
So, which word would you prefare to be used to describe the republican parties decoupling of policy from scientific fact? When stuff like global warming becomes something that you need to believe in, when you require evolution be taught simultaneously with religious creation myths in biology class or not at all, that shows that you do not value the scientific method as a way to acquire knowledge. And as far as i understand, those are not fringe points of view in the republican party.
Then you have the other post-factual bullshit like newt gingriches statement about how it doesn't matter what is actually happening, the important think is what voters feel is happening.
Or Trumps constant decoupling of his reality from the actual real reality.
To me, these are very problematic points of view in a political parties, points of view which should get you laughed out of the political field in a modern society. Yet the republican party still incorporates them, and not only in random crazy people on the fringes, but as a main part of their ideology. You dislike the term anti-science. So which term do you prefer for that behaviour, so we can stop talking semantics and start talking substance?
|
On November 20 2017 07:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 06:34 Adreme wrote:On November 20 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis. Climate Change? Clean coal? When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes. As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called? The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology. Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based I get that you like to make statements that are nothing more then empty talking points with no basis in reality but you do realize that this administration is the one hiring non-scientists for jobs that used to only go to scientists and trying to purge scientists from various panels. That isnt some debatable point by the way its a thing they are actively doing because there solution when science disagrees with there position is to silence the scientists. I respond to partisan talking points with partisan talking points sometimes. Particularly when the author pretends to be objective.
One can very objectively point out that one party (to which they may have a partisan bias independent of the commentary itself) has notably worse policies regarding say, scientific publication, education and application, than the other. That isn't a partisan talking point, that's having a basic grasp of reality.
Veracity of a statement is independent of whether some group of politicians and/or their supporters have said statement as a common talking point. Surely you can look at what both parties actually do, how their representatives vote and write legislation, and see this for yourself. Attacking a talking point by conflating incorrectness with partisanship is just dishonest. You aren't coming to the table in good faith.
|
On November 20 2017 06:32 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis. Climate Change? Clean coal? When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes. As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called? The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology. Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based Fukushima ruined nuclear power, not leftists or some ideology. Obama was pro nuclear and talking about opening more plants until it became politically unfeasible due to the disaster. Also, gas is cheaper than coal. You don't need any utopian desires to realize that coal is finished.
Coal in western US is much cheaper to produce than in Appalachia. You don't even need to kill coal to kill coal in the eastern US.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The idea of "pro-science" vs. "anti-science" often assumes that the only dichotomy that exists is between people who believe climate change exists and needs to be addressed, and those who don't, using the "science says it's true" to justify far more than is actually scientifically accurate. Indeed, it seems like the people who take that view are less scientifically literate than they are just riding that "I love science and follow it blindly" bullshit train. Which often involves giving money to any talented bullshit artist who promises to save the world if you give him a stack of cash.
Is climate change quite undeniably real? Yes. Does denial often masquerade as skepticism? Absolutely. Do fraudsters masquerading as green revolutionists use the blind idiot worship of "science" and "progress" to walk away with billions of investor and taxpayer dollars from businessmen and politicians (and voterbase) who are as scientifically illiterate as the climate change deniers they claim to oppose? Definitely.
A lot of this green worship is "I love science" mentality rather than the actual scientific method. Evidently some people are none the wiser.
|
"Pro-science" and "anti-science" extend beyond just climate change, though. For example, opposition to embryonic stem cell research is far more common among Republicans than Democrats.
The pro-science/anti-science moniker isn't solely rooted in the politics of climate change an environmental policy. That just happens to be the most divisive current issue.
The left has it's fair share of "anti-science" groups like anti-vaxxers, but the mainstream Democratic party doesn't really cater policy to these people. Whereas the Republican party has largely been more willing to direct it's policy based on various groups in it's base that oppose one form of scientific research or another (e.g. religious opposition to ESC research or the NRA opposing CDC efforts to study gun violence as a public health issue).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 20 2017 08:12 TheYango wrote:
"Pro-science" and "anti-science" extend beyond just climate change, though.
Of course it doesn't. But that's definitely the most common usage in the current cycle and the one that just came up (e.g. Scott Pruitt and his science chops). So it's best to stick to that example.
Is embryonic stem cells still a popular issue? Haven't seen any real mention of it as a significant political position since 08.
|
On November 20 2017 08:21 LegalLord wrote:
Is embryonic stem cells still a popular issue? Haven't seen any real mention of it as a significant political position since 08.
Opposition to ESC research was a part of the 2016 Republican party platform. Most people probably don't care anymore at this point, but officially, it's there.
On November 20 2017 08:21 LegalLord wrote:
(e.g. Scott Pruitt and his science chops)
FWIW, I don't think Pruitt's lack of science chops are a dealbreaker as far as his ability to administrate the EPA goes. Plenty of past EPA administrators made positive contributions to the organization just fine without being particularly scientifically inclined. It's a science-driven organization, but an administrator also needs to do administrative things, and past administrators have made positive contributions to the organization through administrative change, even when that change involved budget cuts to the organization and internal restructuring.
On the other hand Pruitt's past record with the organization and his few months at the helm thus far have done nothing to convince me that he's interested in making that kind of positive contribution.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 20 2017 08:23 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 08:21 LegalLord wrote:
Is embryonic stem cells still a popular issue? Haven't seen any real mention of it as a significant political position since 08. Opposition to ESC research was a part of the 2016 Republican party platform. Most people probably don't care anymore at this point, but officially, it's there.
Huh. Well I guess that's something, though it seems to be in name only since no significant legislation seems to have pushed in that direction.
On November 20 2017 08:23 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 08:21 LegalLord wrote:
(e.g. Scott Pruitt and his science chops) FWIW, I don't think Pruitt's lack of science chops are a dealbreaker as far as his ability to administrate the EPA goes. Plenty of past EPA administrators made positive contributions to the organization just fine without being particularly scientifically inclined. It's a science-driven organization, but an administrator also needs to do administrative things, and past administrators have made positive contributions to the organization through administrative change, even when that change involved budget cuts to the organization and internal restructuring. On the other hand Pruitt's past record with the organization and his few months at the helm thus far have done nothing to convince me that he's interested in making that kind of positive contribution.
No argument from me, he seems like the wrong person for the job.
|
On November 20 2017 08:12 TheYango wrote:
"Pro-science" and "anti-science" extend beyond just climate change, though. For example, opposition to embryonic stem cell research is far more common among Republicans than Democrats.
As is anything scientific that might disagree with common Christian fundamentalism; you won't find as many Democrats who disagree with the big bang theory, for example. And one just has to watch Republican primary debates to see just how few of those candidates will admit to believing in evolution.
We've had this discussion so many times over that it's absolutely axiomatic that the Republican party is 1. less pro-science than the Democratic party (i.e., on a relative scale) and 2. overall anti-science (i.e., on an absolute scale). Danglars is just being disingenuous and feigning being offended just so he can respond with #partisan #fakenews instead of actually dealing with the fact that Trump is definitely more conservative than Hillary when it comes to science and the rights of minorities and women (the latter of which he conveniently dodged completely).
Also, the original topic was Trump vs. Clinton and then Danglars pivoted to the red herring of the overall parties/ Democrats smearing Trump. He clearly lost both the original debate and his strawmanned one though.
|
Comprehensive sex education vs abstinence only is another issue that still sees a partisan divide even though scientific data supports the former.
|
On November 20 2017 07:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 06:34 Adreme wrote:On November 20 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis. Climate Change? Clean coal? When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes. As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called? The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology. Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based I get that you like to make statements that are nothing more then empty talking points with no basis in reality but you do realize that this administration is the one hiring non-scientists for jobs that used to only go to scientists and trying to purge scientists from various panels. That isnt some debatable point by the way its a thing they are actively doing because there solution when science disagrees with there position is to silence the scientists. I respond to partisan talking points with partisan talking points sometimes. Particularly when the author pretends to be objective.
Again it's hard to atgue a party isn't anti science when a party does all it can to silence them fire them or purge scientists from scientific advisory panels because they don't like the science.
The thing that stops nuclear is twofold. 1. There are a LOT of safeguards needed for a nuclear powerplant that make the initial cost very high and more importantly 2. Everyone loves nuclear as long it's not near them.
|
The issue of vaccination actually came up in the Republican primary debates rather than the Democratic ones, resulting in a hilarious moment of disingenuity where despite the fact that two candidates on the stage with MDs had both the knowledge and the expertise to know that the Wakefield study was a debunked pile of bullshit, neither had the balls to call out the anti-vaxx movement as being full of shit.
|
On November 20 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis. Climate Change? Clean coal? When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes. As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called? The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology. Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based
Europe, which is considerably further to the left than America in many regards, had solid gaining support for nuclear power in early 2000s. Whenever a considerable disaster like the Three Mile Island accident or Chernobyl occurs, people get second thoughts about the safety of nuclear power. It has little to do with left or right wing politics, its to do with people seeing a power plant irradiate an entire area because of insufficient regulatory oversight and private operators cutting corners.
Around 2008, over 60% of people surveyed in Europe thought nuclear power was a positive thing as it cuts down of greenhouse gas emissions, decreases dependence on oil and increases energy diversity. That isn't a sign of idiotic leftists getting all NIMBY on you, its the wider pubic liking nuclear power as a future energy solution.
Fukushima occurred in 2011 so if there are people getting second thoughts about supporting nuclear power in recent times, you can't blame them when nuclear power regulations and plant operators completely failed the Japanese public (and still do). I can't say I have a whole lot of trust in the US government and corporations so why would I all of a sudden have faith both will do the right thing with regards to nuclear power?
So to argue that the left doesn't want nuclear power is not entirely accurate. While its true that there's more on the left that might mistrust nuclear power, most are not based on an ignorant anti-science stance like what you are suggesting. They know and agree that its an effective energy source that is safe when properly maintained and regulated, what they don't agree on is that private operators and government regulators will keep this effective energy source properly maintained and regulated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
