Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
Compelling argument.
you pretty much said that the reason people vote for Republicans is because they are stupid.
which is funny, because you are half-right. a big reason why A LOT of people vote for Republicans is because a lot of Democrats think that we're all stupid and aren't that shy about saying it.
Actually, people vote Republican because:
-They feel that they are the "small government" party(which is laughably false) -Religious reasons(in which many Republicans, like Santorum, completely ignore the Bill of Rights) -They are convinced that lower taxes automatically=better economy(also laughably false) -They are convinced that lower regulations automatically=better economy(also false)
Republicans are very good at appealing to the common public with these views, because they are simple and easy to understand. But they aren't supported by evidence-one can contrast the 20s(and the depression that followed) and 50s to see that lower taxes does not necessarily mean a better economy. I'm not saying that higher taxes automatically=a better economy either. These issues aren't simple, and Republicans market them as simple, and they do it really well-that is what I mean when I say they are appealing to stupid people. It's harsh, but it's the truth. Not that Democrats don't do it either, of course, but Republicans are much much better at it.
ahh see, now we're getting somewhere.
the Republicans are the "small government" party for the most part. the problem that a lot of non-Republicans have understanding this is because they think in terms of black and white (for all that they protest to the opposite). they think "i prefer small government" means "i prefer no government in every single facet of my life" when it actually means what it says: we prefer a small, efficient, precise, government with a lot of checks and balances and we want it as cheap as possible. so people are not stupid for calling the Republicans the "small government" party, nor are they 100% wrong. they are simply speaking in generalities. generally Republicans do prefer and work for a smaller government, especially lately.
religious reasons are a big one, but this cuts into the original "stupid" point. most Democrats are religious, so why would the Republican party seem to have the hold on "religious voters"? precisely because the Democratic party, in general, treats religion like a thing that should be kept in the home, and a sizable minority of the party, a very vocal minority, treats it like a quaint and "stupid" thing. religion is extremely important to a lot of people, and contrary to popular opinion on this site, people are not generally stupid. they can tell when their beliefs are being trivialized or mocked, and they are turned off by it.
it is not that people think lower taxes=better economy, so much as people just want lower taxes and they especially want it when the economy is bad. you can scream and shout at people all day long about the need to pay more, but in general people will want to pay less and will try to find a way to pay less. when the economy is bad, your wallet starts getting slimmer and taxes start looking a lot more like something that you can do with a little less of.
it's the same thing as above with regulation. people don't think less regulation automatically means a better economy. they just don't like burdensome regulations and when the economy gets bad regulations start looking more and more burdensome and more and more expendable. the most common response is that taking away burdensome regulations and lowering taxes a bit would not "fix" the problem, and therefore are not worth it. the answer is that a small cup of water may not save a man dying of thirst, but he's still gonna want it pretty bad.
it's not harsh so much as it is elitist and misinformed. people are not so stupid as you make them out to be, nor are they so easily tricked. they just have concerns that do not necessarily coincide with yours, or even with the "good of society as a whole". when people are hurting economically or believe that they are hurting economically, they are much less tolerant of what they see as unnecessary expenditures out of the government.
it is not that people think the issues themselves are all "simple" (though they usually are), so much as that many of the solutions to the issues are relatively simple to understand, however complex the actual problem may be. most people do not want to concern themselves with every tiny little detail of solving the problem, and rightly so. this doesn't make them stupid, or even uninformed. the whole reason why we elect people to do the job is because not all of us want to do the job. Republicans don't water down their message any more than Democrats do, and neither of them is necessarily wrong in watering the message down, precisely because most people are intelligent enough to understand what they are talking about. seriously though, acting like Democrats don't do this just as much is just... i don't even know. dishonest i guess.
First of all, thank you for not resorting to personal attacks. I've found very few conservatives that don't.
the Republicans are the "small government" party for the most part. the problem that a lot of non-Republicans have understanding this is because they think in terms of black and white (for all that they protest to the opposite). they think "i prefer small government" means "i prefer no government in every single facet of my life" when it actually means what it says: we prefer a small, efficient, precise, government with a lot of checks and balances and we want it as cheap as possible. so people are not stupid for calling the Republicans the "small government" party, nor are they 100% wrong. they are simply speaking in generalities. generally Republicans do prefer and work for a smaller government, especially lately.
Economically, Republicans do support a smaller economy for the most part. This is difficult to debate. I think smaller government intervention in the economy is worse in general, and I gave my reasons in my post above, but that's a different argument. Socially, though, it's hard to argue that the Republicans are a smaller government part when they try to keep gay marriage illegal, hunt down illegal immigrants(I had to write a huge paper over that topic..), and restrict women's birth rights. So I guess saying that the Republicans are a small government party is half true, but saying that the Democrats are small government is half true as well, and so the Republicans and Democrats are equal in this regard-so voting for the Republicans strictly in terms of small government doesn't make much sense. If you believe a smaller, more free market is better for the economy, than that's another story.
religious reasons are a big one, but this cuts into the original "stupid" point. most Democrats are religious, so why would the Republican party seem to have the hold on "religious voters"? precisely because the Democratic party, in general, treats religion like a thing that should be kept in the home, and a sizable minority of the party, a very vocal minority, treats it like a quaint and "stupid" thing. religion is extremely important to a lot of people, and contrary to popular opinion on this site, people are not generally stupid. they can tell when their beliefs are being trivialized or mocked, and they are turned off by it.
For the record, I don't have a problem with religious people, even though I'm an agnostic. I have a problem when religious people try to force their views on others, and that's exactly what many Republicans, especially the really crazy ones like Bachmann and Santorum do. So people vote for them, because they feel like everyone should have to follow their religious beliefs, which is an incredibly simpleminded way to look at it. Rarely do Democrats mock or trivialize religion, because they know the political consequences that would result-it's more of the fact that Republicans pander specifically to more extreme Christians, and that's why Republicans in general attract the more fanatic religious voters. There are some people who think all religious people are stupid, and that's just being hypocritical because than they are doing the same thing that the extreme religious groups are. The extreme religious groups are greater in number, though, and so the Republicans get a big chunk of the vote from them.
it is not that people think lower taxes=better economy, so much as people just want lower taxes and they especially want it when the economy is bad. you can scream and shout at people all day long about the need to pay more, but in general people will want to pay less and will try to find a way to pay less. when the economy is bad, your wallet starts getting slimmer and taxes start looking a lot more like something that you can do with a little less of.
it's the same thing as above with regulation. people don't think less regulation automatically means a better economy. they just don't like burdensome regulations and when the economy gets bad regulations start looking more and more burdensome and more and more expendable. the most common response is that taking away burdensome regulations and lowering taxes a bit would not "fix" the problem, and therefore are not worth it. the answer is that a small cup of water may not save a man dying of thirst, but he's still gonna want it pretty bad.
I completely agree that this is why a lot of people vote Republican. My point is that most people don't have the understanding to see why this is BAD for them in the long term.
it's not harsh so much as it is elitist and misinformed. people are not so stupid as you make them out to be, nor are they so easily tricked. they just have concerns that do not necessarily coincide with yours, or even with the "good of society as a whole". when people are hurting economically or believe that they are hurting economically, they are much less tolerant of what they see as unnecessary expenditures out of the government.
it is not that people think the issues themselves are all "simple" (though they usually are), so much as that many of the solutions to the issues are relatively simple to understand, however complex the actual problem may be. most people do not want to concern themselves with every tiny little detail of solving the problem, and rightly so. this doesn't make them stupid, or even uninformed. the whole reason why we elect people to do the job is because not all of us want to do the job. Republicans don't water down their message any more than Democrats do, and neither of them is necessarily wrong in watering the message down, precisely because most people are intelligent enough to understand what they are talking about. seriously though, acting like Democrats don't do this just as much is just... i don't even know. dishonest i guess.
People always seek simple answers to complicated issues, and the truth is there are very few simple answers. In times of crisis, the flaws of the government become more obvious, there's no doubt about it, but people don't have to look at every single detail of every problem to have a general idea of which solution seems to have more evidence backing it. Most people just watch the news to get their politics info, and the news is of course biased in either one direction or the other, which leads to people being misinformed-but if they spent some time fact checking some of the bigger claims that the politicians make, and spend more than a few minutes between now and November researching the issues, than we would go a LONG way. But most people aren't willing to put that much effort. And of course Democrats do it as well, I'm saying that Republicans are simply better at it.
On May 01 2012 01:19 paralleluniverse wrote: Anywho, cool video nonetheless, I'm sure all of the brainwashed civilians will vote for it, but between Romney and Obama, I mean... Choose between corruption and even more corruption, might as well stay with obama because at least he can put on a nice smile as he lies, and not sound like a neo-bush, intellectually handicapped this one be !
i rather have a devil that looks like the devil. not a devil that the majority thinks is god (of change;). so bush was fine. everyone knew he was a bad guy. but obama is imo even worse, since his disguising.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.
Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.
First off, the book "Aftershock-The Next Economy and America's Future" by economist Robert Reich is a great read on this.
Obviously, I'm not going to be able to cover every detail, but I'll go into the main points of why I believe a totally free market is a bad idea.
Let's start with the 20s. The 20s economy was for the most part a laissez-faire economy-the highest income tax rate was 25% by 1925, and there was very little regulation(Coolidge was VERY opposed to it). In the 20s, this seemed great- it was called the roaring 20s and so forth, and the economy seemed to boom. But the problem with the laissez-faire economy was that it was very volatile-and though the beginning/mid 20s saw a boom, the irresponsibility of the deregulated banks combined with a variety of other factors made the economy crash so badly that it resulted in the Great Depression.
Now let's look at the Depression. FDR's presidency brought a massive increase in tax rates on the rich(up to 63%) and new regulations on banks as well as social welfare programs(Social Security). The economy began to recover, but with the deficit increasingly massively, many freaked out about balancing the budget, and Roosevelt initiated spending cuts in 37 which led to the Roosevelt Recession in 37-38. And then the MASSIVE amounts of spending that came from WW2 brought the economy back full swing. And from WW2 up until the early 80s, the tax rates remained high, and the economy more regulated. Of course, the 70s saw stagflation, which was a major issue, but that was a result of the oil crisis, not the high taxes/regulation. Since then we've had a relatively deregulated economy compared to the 40s-70s, and our economy has been much more volatile, which is the problem with a free market.
So that's the basic gist of my argument. I don't really have time to write a massive essay going into every detail.
So how much more money should the government spend that it doesn't have? Would adding another few trillion to the debt bring us back to the prosperous times of the 40s-70s? When does massive government spending stop helping the economy because its sinking the government?
If you pay attention to the deficit figures during that time period, you'll see that the debt peaked right at the end of WW2 and generally declined up until Reagan. The high taxes on the rich were a big factor in this. And the massive government spending is needed to bring the unemployment rate down-once that's down, we can focus on cutting spending and so on. Cutting spending when the economy is in a recession, though, has bad results(look at Greece)
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
Pray tell, what exactly is mainstream economics? The free-market system+varying levels of government regulation? Or are you going on a different path and are actually referring to the Keynesian vs Austrian/Chicago conflict?
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
Well I am not any of those things (except global warming, I just don't give a shit about it), though I suppose I don't acutally consider myself a republican, but I usually vote for them.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
i don't know what you mean by "intellectualism" so i won't comment on that but:
i am relatively "anti-science". mainly because i don't think science is ever kept in it's proper place by the people who practice it, and also that way too many assumptions are made by scientists and then repeated as gospel truth.
anti-academics i am not. anti-academia i am, but only because it seems as though the majority of academia is anti-me. education is of course a very important thing and should be encouraged, however, i do not believe that the state of education in this country is such that a degree or a diploma necessarily means anything.
i don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, i believe that evolution has occurred in one form or another. i only hate science in so far as I am willing to abandon it if necessary, but i do cling to religion and will continue to do so. i wouldn't call myself anti-gay though i do have some issues with the way the homosexuals are being treated and treat themselves (it's off-topic as hell so let's keep that discussion for another place and time), and i am only anti-embryonic stem cell research. adult stem cell research is great.
i don't know what you mean by "mainstream economics"
basically, i fit into almost every stereotype that you posted. am i stupid? probably. does that mean i'm wrong? i don't know, you tell me.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
If you want to have a dogma fight, either "party" can win. Most foreigners don't understand the long history that democrats have of being on the wrong side of everything. From slavery, to Hitler, to Stalin. Democrats have to hide their actual ideals and feign moderatation to win votes. I have no doubt that Obama appears to be moderate, he has otherwise he would never win a presidential election.
"Imperialism, the Eve of the Socialist Revolution of the Proletariat"
Perhaps the left wing in this country is doing it wrong. What if we let the fascists take over and allow crony capitalism to self destruct (speed up the process). Decentralize and give power to the states and see how fast we can hit rock bottom (I know you won't let me down Arizona!). Rebuild with a Scandinavian style capitalism/socialism.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
Hmmm... I work for the GOP.
I earn my doctorate in less than a year.
I acknowledge global warming is happening.
I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke.
I have an undergraduate degree in science.
I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic.
I support gay marriage.
I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions.
I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others.
It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs.
On May 01 2012 01:19 paralleluniverse wrote: New Obama video.
I want to see where they obtained all the "all time high" stats. I don't think our the Nation's fuel production is at an 8 year high, I think we've been running at maximum capacity for quite a while, and the reason our gas prices are so high is because our fuel infrastructure can't handle the volume.
Though, I don't know much about these kinds of things. Those are just tid bits of misinformation that mislead large amounts of people and I find it appalling that they do that.
You know, you "thinking" the statement is wrong doesn't actually make it wrong... Why would you say it's "misinformation" and say it's appalling they're doing that when the statement is in reality perfectly true, as can be easily verified?
I was never meaning for my "thought" to be taken as word. The entire comment was more a mental summary of my thoughts, rather than trying to persuade anyone. I have just heard several times from several sources, albeit over a long period of time without my taking serious mental notation every time I heard said fact. But I just feel that it's misinforming the public with some kind of fact that's not actually true.
Such as saying fuel production is at an 8 year high, when it's actually just been the same production rate for 8 years. That would be something I'd consider misinformation. Why?
We've maintained our fuel output rate at maximum level for 8 years! doesn't sound as good. But it seems it
Which leads to me saying that, "I think we've been running at maximum capacity..." Continuing that statement, I said, "Though I don't know much about these kinds of things." I guess you'd feel better if I said, "I think those are just tid bits of misinformation.."??
I don't understand how you can read what I said, and feel like I'm declaring it as truth.
IF what I think is true, then it's appalling they're shedding those "statistics" as some kind of awesome, powerful, pro-Obama fact
Yes, I do think writing "Those are just tid bits of misinformation that mislead large amounts of people and I find it appalling that they do that" makes you sound more assertive than you say you were. I just gave you two links that show your impression/feeling was wrong, though, so do you acknowledge it wasn't misinformation? :-)
Nope, I still feel the information is misrepresented. Not to mention, the source for information that you've given me is speaking of ethanol, and not crude oil (as that's the focus here).
The statement in the video: "U.S. oil production is at 8 year high".
U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day): 2004: 5,419 2005: 5,178 2006: 5,102 2007: 5,064 2008: 4,950 2009: 5,361 2010: 5,476 2011: 5,662
The statement is therefore true.
On May 01 2012 09:27 zachMEISTER wrote: Also:
According to the source you gave me, the US only produced 330 million barrels of ethanol in 2010. That is no where near the amount of crude oil consumed daily by the US.
Only 10% of Ethanol is being used in our gasoline, which I'd say is the major source of increased demand (yay government subsidies!).
The United States houses 3 of the world's largest crude oil refineries, and over 140 crude oil refineries domestically.*
According to the CIA world fact book, the US uses 19.15 million barrels of crude oil per day(2010 numbers), using very rough estimates of the numbers from here, I estimate that all of those refineries combined can refine at least 17 million per day.
The United States imports more crude oil than any other nation, 9,600,000.*
The United States exports less than 1,000,000 barrels of crude oil.*
The United States produces roughly 9,800,000 barrels of crude oil.*
Is the gulf oil spill already wiped from the memories of the masses? Increased production of crude oil is not necessarily a good thing.
mis·in·for·ma·tion/ˌmisinfərˈmāSHən/n/ False or inaccurate information, esp. in order to deceive
None of what you just said is relevant regarding the validity of the statement. The statement alone is not there to embody the energy policy of the Obama administration. It's a factual assertion about the level of US oil production today, aimed notably at debunking some of what the President's opponents are accusing him of (I'm pretty sure a good number of Republican voters are convinced Obama reduced oil production). It's neither false nor inaccurate.
On May 01 2012 09:27 zachMEISTER wrote: These facts alone make me believe that "Our oil production is at an 8 year high!" is:
NOT something that should be celebrated
NOT a statistic that should be used as a reflection of Presidential action
NOT a reason to vote for President Obama again.
An intentional play-on-words.
Again, your first three points have nothing to do with the validity or not of the statement. And how is that statement a play-on-words? It's factual and says exactly what it says.
On May 01 2012 09:27 zachMEISTER wrote: This is not an all inclusive list that means every fact stated in the video is false because this one claim was mis-represented.
It's not mis-represented.
On May 01 2012 09:27 zachMEISTER wrote: Note: I still feel that a lot of the facts listed in the video are a stretch for votes, even if this particular statement in question wasn't exactly "false", it's still quite a streeeeeeeeettch.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
Hmmm... I work for the GOP.
I earn my doctorate in less than a year.
I acknowledge global warming is happening.
I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke.
I have an undergraduate degree in science.
I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic.
I support gay marriage.
I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions.
I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others.
It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs.
You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above).
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
If you want to have a dogma fight, either "party" can win. Most foreigners don't understand the long history that democrats have of being on the wrong side of everything. From slavery, to Hitler, to Stalin. Democrats have to hide their actual ideals and feign moderatation to win votes. I have no doubt that Obama appears to be moderate, he has otherwise he would never win a presidential election.
I don't see the Democrats having an anti-vaccine and anti-animal research policy. All that the article says is that there are some people in liberal areas who don't believe in vaccination.
And I'm not surprised that most academics and intellectuals are liberal, as conservatives are anti-intellectual. So why would they support a party that hates who they are and what they do?
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
i don't know what you mean by "intellectualism" so i won't comment on that but:
i am relatively "anti-science". mainly because i don't think science is ever kept in it's proper place by the people who practice it, and also that way too many assumptions are made by scientists and then repeated as gospel truth.
anti-academics i am not. anti-academia i am, but only because it seems as though the majority of academia is anti-me. education is of course a very important thing and should be encouraged, however, i do not believe that the state of education in this country is such that a degree or a diploma necessarily means anything.
i don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, i believe that evolution has occurred in one form or another. i only hate science in so far as I am willing to abandon it if necessary, but i do cling to religion and will continue to do so. i wouldn't call myself anti-gay though i do have some issues with the way the homosexuals are being treated and treat themselves (it's off-topic as hell so let's keep that discussion for another place and time), and i am only anti-embryonic stem cell research. adult stem cell research is great.
i don't know what you mean by "mainstream economics"
basically, i fit into almost every stereotype that you posted. am i stupid? probably. does that mean i'm wrong? i don't know, you tell me.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
Pray tell, what exactly is mainstream economics? The free-market system+varying levels of government regulation? Or are you going on a different path and are actually referring to the Keynesian vs Austrian/Chicago conflict?
Very crudely mainstream economics is the following: Microeconomics: Neoclassical economics. Macroeconomics: New Keynesian economics.
Although mainstream economics is also more than this. For example, it can include rational expectations, particularly in finance, even though this assumption is sometimes dubious, but obviously economists can recognize model assumptions, and when certain models are applicable. Mainstream economics is simply the type of economics that is widely taught and researched at university.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics.
This is easy to counter. Democrats don't believe the unborn are persons or even alive.
The position that embryos are not persons is not anti-science. Science has nothing to do with the definition of personhood.
ROFL, that article was a clear an example of being guilty of an ecological fallacy I can think of. If you don't know what that is, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy.
- Anti-vaccination: the only thing they base their accusation of Democrats being anti-vaccination on is this: "the states with the highest rates of vaccine refusal for kindergarteners are Washington, Vermont and Oregon — three of the most progressive states in the country". Are you serious? Ecological fallacy ftw. - Anti-nuclear: All they write is "We can also thank progressives for blocking the construction of nuclear power plants". Ok, how about numbers regarding the Democratic electorate? Oh, that's right, there are none. - Anti-animal research: "Progressive organizations such as PETA are opposed to animal research, despite the fact that an overwhelming 93% of scientists support it". Yes, because when you look at the Democratic electorate in the U.S., most Democrats are obviously members of PETA.
Wow, talk about taking a statement in an article (and the article itself) completely out of context. The article doesn't say social scientists necessarily reject scientific demonstrations that clash with their views, they say some communities of social scientists are sometimes reluctant to explore certain hypotheses that contradict prior consensus. The article doesn't even say liberal scientists are prone to be more guilty of this than conservative scientists, it simply points out that liberal social scientists outnumber conservative social scientists. Were you not expecting us to read your links or something?
Having an economic discussion with people that think FDR pulled the US out of the Great Depression is completely useless. The data actually shows FDR extended it and it only resolved when interventions were removed. I won't bother trying to post a simple link for it, but you have a line of research to work from to educate yourself. Either way, as you will see below, it is irrelevant to the thesis being supplied that an interventionist economy provides growth and stability.
This is because nobody has bothered to look at WHY we had a Great Depression. It was the FEDERAL RESERVES INTERVENTIONIST POLICIES THAT CAUSED IT.
So even if it were true that interventionist economics pulled the country out of the Great Depression (which it didn't), citing interventionist policies for providing a stable, growing, healthy economy with ANY discussion of the Great Depression is hardly foundation for the arguement that interventionsionist economic policies cause said economic stability and growth as the interventions CAUSED the worst economic situation during the 20th century it in the first place.
On May 01 2012 19:58 AcuWill wrote: Having an economic discussion with people that think FDR pulled the US out of the Great Depression is completely useless. The data actually shows FDR extended it and it only resolved when interventions were removed.
On May 01 2012 19:58 AcuWill wrote: Having an economic discussion with people that think FDR pulled the US out of the Great Depression is completely useless. The data actually shows FDR extended it and it only resolved when interventions were removed.
EPT
