• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rich people are more socially, economically liberal

You evidently know next to nothing about argumentation. I offer up a simple hypothesis: liberals tend to be more educated and travel more often. You disagree vehemently. I then offer up evidence from credible sources -- the PEW research polls and International Business Traveler -- to back my hypothesis. You answer that my evidence is garbage. You give no explanation as to why that evidence is garbage except to say that you think the "electoral college" is a "blunt instrument." You then offer absolutely zero evidence for any of your claims and absolutely zero evidence in contradiction of my evidence. You then close your post with a condescending multi-linguistic "understand?"

I'm not saying my evidence is definitive. I don't think it is. But it's light years ahead of any insights you've offered, which are none aside from your personal anecdotes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Very small claims, like my own, require much less. We're not in a court of law, we're just advancing ideas. Evidence is good. Lack of evidence, not so good. You don't seem to get that. You clearly have nothing substantive to say on the matter, so buzz off. You're not worth my attention any longer.
Oh, to the contrary, been around the ol argumentation block a few times. I would suggest developing a thicker skin, don't go all paranoid about being condescended to, also develop better and more supportable arguments.

Fact is there are all kinds of holes with your "evidence". Its just blue/red/purple state numbers, no actual breakdown by party affiliation, so you have no real solid identifying numbers. Then you have the whole fact that this is only one form of travel, international travel, and your original premise was only tied it to the more general term, "travel". Might just be that the red states folks travel more but only in country. Then you have the problems associated with many of those with low passport numbers being states not really having close access to borders, which those with close borders would get a lot more people who can actually use/need passports, then the fact that many of those high passport states are coastal states that have more airline traffic/international connections. Flying out to other countries becomes more expensive for those more distantly located from the international hubs, the fact that states that have more people with money does, indeed, allow for easier generally more expensive foreign travel, though does not preclude folks from traveling a lot within their state or to other, adjoining states...there are myriad factors. logical factors, that allow the states that show more passports currently to be the ones with that lead, but certainly does not necessarily mean they "travel" more...

Proves absolutely nothing based on any "evidence" you have provided. And if you do not realize that the way people voted in the last two presidential races, which states went which way, is a very blunt instrument in determining whether a person holding a passport has a D or R voting penchant, well, I cannot help your faulty, and easily swayed by nothing much of true substance, rational capacities... or lack thereof.
 
Oh, to the contrary, been around the ol argumentation block a few times. I would suggest developing a thicker skin, don't go all paranoid about being condescended to, also develop better and more supportable arguments.

Fact is there are all kinds of holes with your "evidence". Its just blue/red/purple state numbers, no actual breakdown by party affiliation, so you have no real solid identifying numbers. Then you have the whole fact that this is only one form of travel, international travel, and your original premise was only tied it to the more general term, "travel". Might just be that the red states folks travel more but only in country. Then you have the problems associated with many of those with low passport numbers being states not really having close access to borders, which those with close borders would get a lot more people who can actually use/need passports, then the fact that many of those high passport states are coastal states that have more airline traffic/international connections. Flying out to other countries becomes more expensive for those more distantly located from the international hubs, the fact that states that have more people with money does, indeed, allow for easier generally more expensive foreign travel, though does not preclude folks from traveling a lot within their state or to other, adjoining states...there are myriad factors. logical factors, that allow the states that show more passports currently to be the ones with that lead, but certainly does not necessarily mean they "travel" more...

Proves absolutely nothing based on any "evidence" you have provided. And if you do not realize that the way people voted in the last two presidential races, which states went which way, is a very blunt instrument in determining whether a person holding a passport has a D or R voting penchant, well, I cannot help your faulty, and easily swayed by nothing much of true substance, rational capacities... or lack thereof.

Wrong on every count.

1) Red states/blue states are a good general indicator of party affiliation. Not perfect, but good enough for a general measure.
2) The International Business Traveler evidence was not exclusive to international travel. Only my second bit of evidence on passports was limited that way. So every objection you have to international travel applies only to the second piece I put out there, which I posted well after your vigorous (and frankly, stupid) objections. Also, the article on passports acknowledges every objection you raise. So it's clear your affirmation bias runs so deep that you're not even reading clearly.

I have a plenty thick skin. I just don't suffer idiots gladly. Still haven't seen a shred of evidence contesting my claims or supporting any of your whimsical utterances. As for "rational capacities" outweighing evidence? Well, you're holding no cards on either front.
 
Wrong on every count.

1) Red states/blue states are a good general indicator of party affiliation. Not perfect, but good enough for a general measure.
2) The International Business Traveler evidence was not exclusive to international travel. Only my second bit of evidence on passports was limited that way. So every objection you have to international travel applies only to the second piece I put out there, which I posted well after your vigorous (and frankly, stupid) objections. Also, the article on passports acknowledges every objection you raise. So it's clear your affirmation bias runs so deep that you're not even reading clearly.

I have a plenty thick skin. I just don't suffer idiots gladly. Still haven't seen a shred of evidence contesting my claims or supporting any of your whimsical utterances. As for "rational capacities" outweighing evidence? Well, you're holding no cards on either front.
Sorry, in our aspect of the debate, you offered no Pew polls on the matter at all, you only offered two inconclusive articles with reasons to the contrary already profusely identified.

First the IBT facade of reporting and then what appears, from the make up/bios of its editors and contributors at the Expeditioner travel site, to be a site on travel that is a bit left learning at the very minimum. Hardly find these sources very fact based or truly informative, just fluff that does not confirm my bias, but rather confirms yours.

And while your measures are "good enough" for your side perhaps. our side likes the whole thing to be a bit better nailed down, precise its called. My objections only appear stupid to you since you have no real answers, just platitudes and gripes. And its is flat out disingenuous to say that all my objections were acknowledged, much less quelled.

I imagine you avoid the mirror, lest your suffering would grow exponentially. Sorry. but the fraud of your assertions cannot be so easily avoided.
 
Sorry, in our aspect of the debate, you offered no Pew polls on the matter at all, you only offered two inconclusive articles with reasons to the contrary already profusely identified.

First the IBT facade of reporting and then what appears, from the make up/bios of its editors and contributors at the Expeditioner travel site, to be a site on travel that is a bit left learning at the very minimum. Hardly find these sources very fact based or truly informative, just fluff that does not confirm my bias, but rather confirms yours.

And while your measures are "good enough" for your side perhaps. our side likes the whole thing to be a bit better nailed down, precise its called. My objections only appear stupid to you since you have no real answers, just platitudes and gripes. And its is flat out disingenuous to say that all my objections were acknowledged, much less quelled.

I imagine you avoid the mirror, lest your suffering would grow exponentially. Sorry. but the fraud of your assertions cannot be so easily avoided.

I'm forced to conclude that you're incapable of reading. You claim that I never cited Pew Poll research. Have a look again at the first piece of evidence I cited that notes higher education levels among liberals. If you're capable, look again to see where the data originates. Surprise, surprise -- PEW research.

Yes, the article on passports anticipated every objection you have. I don't think your objections are entirely off the mark, and I don't think I've proven beyond all reasonable doubt that liberals travel more. It's just that some evidence -- imperfect as it is -- suggests that. You're too dismissive of it, and you're setting the bar too high, especially in light of your not providing any reputable external sources yourself.

By the way, we disagreed earlier on which came first. I argued that people become liberal after they travel. You argued that liberally-minded people just tend to travel more. Well, there's strong research by one of my favorite psychologists, Jon Haidt, that indicates liberals tend to seek novelty. I think that weighs heavily in favor of your interpretation of the data.

Oh, and I love the mirror, baby. :thanks
 
Last edited:
Does your hypothesis include the many staunch conservative billionaires that finance the Republican candidates and their oppressive policies? Men like the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and many, many others like them?


.

I'd say that idea holds truth to both political parties.
 
Here's evidence that democrats travel more often.

I think it's just, because Alabama is so awesome. I mean, why go somewhere else when you can spend 365 days a year there.

In all seriousness though, after looking at the map the biggest variables seem to be lack of wealth and ruralness. That may come across as Conservative due to both being prominent characteristics in them. Wealth obviously explains itself.

However, in rural states where infrastructure is limited, access to prominent travel networks are not readily available, so that is most certainly going to decrease travel. Combine, that with the fact people living in rural areas regardless of political standing are often not exposed to other cultures, people, or really anything, it isn't unrealistic to assert that they probably don't have the greatest desire in changing that. Perhaps outside of a few overly curious people who end up leaving the region for a more urbanized area anyways.

That seems to at least be partially proven by the fact that the rural blue states travel less, while the urban red states travel more.
 
I cannot say anything about rich / wealthy people's political leanings in that we seldom discussed that as I was fixing their yachts, but I CAN tell you this with 100% certainty.

Almost 100% of all the very rich and very wealthy yacht owners I have dealt with have been some of the nicest people I have every run across.

This was in New England as well as Ft Lauderdale.

Many the time, I was ready to break for lunch, when they insisted I stay on board and dine with them in the salon.

One CEO made me a turkey sandwich as he was making one for himself. That was the very first time I had whole cranberry sauce on a turkey sandwich. Now it is the best way I like them.

Another time the owners wife was heading out to go shopping as I was sitting at the table talking to her husband. She kissed him goodbye, then turned and kissed my on the top of my head, as she left. Saying she did not want me to feel left out. :3oops:

Another time everything I touched got fixed on an investment banker's boat, so he kept giving me little annoying items that were broke, and I fixed them, one after another. He wrote me a $200 tip, then asked for me specifically each and every time and gave me that same tip when I left.

Good people.

My theory is that when they are on their yacht, they are relaxing and enjoying the fruits of their labors, and it puts them in a happy state of mind.

The very few, and very rare pricks I met were those that had go fast power boats under 25 feet. You know the kind. The same type guy that wears all kinds of gold chains and is new money, and it goes right to his head. Their go fast power boat is just part of their uniform.

As a person who dealt with professional athletes and pro and college coaches for a long time, I can say almost the opposite. The nice ones were few and far between. Most of them were complete jagoffs.
 
That maybe could be considered a stepping stool to evidence. This simplistic device only breaks down travel by the very blunt instrument of electoral college assignation of states into red/blue/purple without any real identifiers as to which specific ideology these individual traveling folks actually believe...

Besides which, if you read closely, I stated they often start their journeys more liberal... and as their eyes adjust to the real, pragmatic world, they also adjust to being less idealistic and more realistic in their ideas of how the world truly works.

Entiendes? Capiche'? Understand?

Ah, shades of the fake Churchill quote that people still puke up as gospel.
 
So what? We're not in a court of law. Do you have evidence that conservatives are more likely to travel, or that there is no correlation? If so, let's see it. Otherwise, give it up, and cool it with the condescending crap.

Yeah, asking Gaugingcatenate to stop being condescending is like telling a fish to stop swimming.
 
I'm forced to conclude that you're incapable of reading. You claim that I never cited Pew Poll research. Have a look again at the first piece of evidence I cited that notes higher education levels among liberals. If you're capable, look again to see where the data originates. Surprise, surprise -- PEW research.

Yes, the article on passports anticipated every objection you have. I don't think your objections are entirely off the mark, and I don't think I've proven beyond all reasonable doubt that liberals travel more. It's just that some evidence -- imperfect as it is -- suggests that. You're too dismissive of it, and you're setting the bar too high, especially in light of your not providing any reputable external sources yourself.

By the way, we disagreed earlier on which came first. I argued that people become liberal after they travel. You argued that liberally-minded people just tend to travel more. Well, there's strong research by one of my favorite psychologists, Jon Haidt, that indicates liberals tend to seek novelty. I think that weighs heavily in favor of your interpretation of the data.

Oh, and I love the mirror, baby. :thanks
No.

For one who proclaims that I am the incapable party in this discussion, sure seems you to be the once less able to read and comprehend. What I precisely, and specifically, said was that "in our aspect of the debate," the Pew polls were of no consequence as the Pew research HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRAVEL. Now...Capiche'? Enitendes? Understand? I ask these not, necessarily, to be condescending, but to actually ascertain whether you are following the equation at least minimally.

Apparently not.

Where do either of the two articles that, actually, pertain to travel state anything about business folk, generally regarded as being mostly more conservative [ and of course if you are willing to accept the blunt instrument of red state v blue, you will be accepting of the generality of the conservatism of the business class, right?], traveling in relatively high numbers, especially abroad?

That was one of my [unstated] objections. And yet you have stated, categorically, that the article anticipated all my objections... which cannot be true as I did not even list ALL of my objections and instead used the symbol of three ellipses generally denoting the idea of an omission or et cetera, et cetera ...along with the accompanying statement of “there are myriad factors”.

My original intention was not to prove that conservatives travel more, but to identify the fact that you had not provided anywhere near proof with which to draw a valid conclusion, that it was at best a guess, an opinion based on the tenuously thin data your proffered.

A minimal bar, yet despite that just too high, which you cannot, based on your sources, get over. I need no sources in which to prove that you are simply guessing, which is all you are really doing.

Oh, and while you might tend to correctly portray your own view on the disagreement about “which came first”, you certainly did a pitiful job of accurately attempting to describe mine... I only said that I thought a lot of travelers may start off liberal, and they, with more knowledge and experiencing of the real world, become more conservative.

Myself, I do not put a lot of stock in studies of psychologists, and perceive potential bias in the way the questions [as well as the article referenced ], were put to the study groups by Haidt, et al...but perhaps you might want to read this opinion article from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/o...ppier-and-extremists-are-happiest-of-all.html
 
Yeah, asking Gaugingcatenate to stop being condescending is like telling a fish to stop swimming.
Hey, not my fault that having the better arguments can make our adversarial discussions seem, to those on the receiving end, like I have an attitude of patronizing superiority and disdain...
 
Hey, not my fault that having the better arguments can make our adversarial discussions seem, to those on the receiving end, like I have an attitude of patronizing superiority and disdain...

Son, I've been coaching and judging formal debate at the high school and college level for decades now. And a debater you aren't. You drop arguments, misrepresent evidence, incorrectly weigh evidence, selectively misread arguments, contradict your conclusions from one post to another, and can't seem to follow the flow to save your life. You think a New York Times opinion piece weighs heavier than meta-studies conducted by one of the most respected social psychologists in the country, even when I generously supplied the psychological study in favor of your argument. I think that says it all.

There's nothing productive going on here in engaging with you. We've also derailed the thread. So I'm signing off.
 
Last edited:
Son, I've been coaching and judging formal debate at the high school and college level for decades now. And a debater you aren't. You drop arguments, misrepresent evidence, incorrectly weigh evidence, selectively misread arguments, contradict your conclusions from one post to another, and can't seem to follow the flow to save your life. You think a New York Times opinion piece weighs heavier than meta-studies conducted by one of the most respected social psychologists in the country, even when I generously supplied the psychological study in favor of your argument. I think that says it all.

There's nothing productive going on here in engaging with you. We've also derailed the thread. So I'm signing off.
Well Papa, I have taught debate, history and economics and, as with your inability to ascertain correct age or lineage, you've thus far proven very few positive abilities at argumentation. Much less the scary thought that you might have been coaching and judging such. Wherein you lack not only the ability but the understanding of what you are doing when trying to 1. Assert a point 2. Support that point with proper "evidence" 3. Align your facts properly and truthfully [ i.e., the Pew source that, although you attempted to tie it to our segment of the discussion, it had absolutely NO BEARING, so I called you on it---busted!! ].

Add to that the not insignificant fact that you are overly sensitive to being questioned, to having the fragility of your feeble points singled out time after time again as well as not having a cool, calm and collected demeanor required of a decent verbal pugilist. The weakness of your abilities is accented with your constant barrage of attacks on other than on topic, the ad homs...

Oh, and I am quite sure in your overly educated, lacking much if any common sense world, that Haidt is an icon to be worshiped. With the fact that psychologist themselves cannot reproduce but 39% of their own studies, well, perhaps you should reevaluate who and how venerate, eh? https://www.theguardian.com/science...-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results And, since you are not really, please do not try to do me any favors ins supposing what is good for my arguments, you are as poor at that as with all your other declarations.

Good luck, but better to have developed some skills...
 
Well Papa, I have taught debate, history and economics and, as with your inability to ascertain correct age or lineage, you've thus far proven very few positive abilities at argumentation. Much less the scary thought that you might have been coaching and judging such. Wherein you lack not only the ability but the understanding of what you are doing when trying to 1. Assert a point 2. Support that point with proper "evidence" 3. Align your facts properly and truthfully [ i.e., the Pew source that, although you attempted to tie it to our segment of the discussion, it had absolutely NO BEARING, so I called you on it---busted!! ].

Add to that the not insignificant fact that you are overly sensitive to being questioned, to having the fragility of your feeble points singled out time after time again as well as not having a cool, calm and collected demeanor required of a decent verbal pugilist. The weakness of your abilities is accented with your constant barrage of attacks on other than on topic, the ad homs...

Oh, and I am quite sure in your overly educated, lacking much if any common sense world, that Haidt is an icon to be worshiped. With the fact that psychologist themselves cannot reproduce but 39% of their own studies, well, perhaps you should reevaluate who and how venerate, eh? https://www.theguardian.com/science...-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results And, since you are not really, please do not try to do me any favors ins supposing what is good for my arguments, you are as poor at that as with all your other declarations.

Good luck, but better to have developed some skills...

You spew the Guardian and the New York Times editorials. I used Pew research and a Scientific American article summarizing meta-studies in social psychology.

Yep, that says it all.
 
You spew the Guardian and the New York Times editorials. I used Pew research and a Scientific American article summarizing meta-studies in social psychology.

Yep, that says it all.
Sorry, but...

No, what verify-ably says it all is that you have hardly a clue as to what you are doing regarding argumentation, not proven virtually but by a real person, me, earlier... the NYT article referenced was to ameliorate any qualms that I would have to use only conservative [see my lean] websites to prove my points. Secondly, the guardian article uses as its source Science Magazine, part of the The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) organization which as Wikipedia describes it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science

"...is an American international non-profit organization with the stated goals of promoting cooperation among scientists, defending scientific freedom, encouraging scientific responsibility, and supporting scientific education and science outreach for the betterment of all humanity. It is the world's largest general scientific society, with 126,995 individual and institutional members at the end of 2008, and is the publisher of the well-known scientific journal Science, which has a weekly circulation of 138,549."

The sources I quote are not from 1. those of my own specific political leaning and 2. are well respected organizations even though I, myself, often detest the NYT. But what you cannot say is that the NYT is, at its core, advocating for conservatism... and please, be my guest, take their sources and destroy them, if you can.

You used Pew earlier falsely, as a fabrication to attempt to assist your advocacy. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but since you are continuing to use it even when being called on it, then we all know now that it was not a legitimate oversight but intentional, that its a outright prevarication [lie].

Credibility is the coin of the realm in debate, and you are left coinless.
 
Sorry, but...

No, what verify-ably says it all is that you have hardly a clue as to what you are doing regarding argumentation, not proven virtually but by a real person, me, earlier... the NYT article referenced was to ameliorate any qualms that I would have to use only conservative [see my lean] websites to prove my points. Secondly, the guardian article uses as its source Science Magazine, part of the The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) organization which as Wikipedia describes it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science

"...is an American international non-profit organization with the stated goals of promoting cooperation among scientists, defending scientific freedom, encouraging scientific responsibility, and supporting scientific education and science outreach for the betterment of all humanity. It is the world's largest general scientific society, with 126,995 individual and institutional members at the end of 2008, and is the publisher of the well-known scientific journal Science, which has a weekly circulation of 138,549."

The sources I quote are not from 1. those of my own specific political leaning and 2. are well respected organizations even though I, myself, often detest the NYT. But what you cannot say is that the NYT is, at its core, advocating for conservatism... and please, be my guest, take their sources and destroy them, if you can.

You used Pew earlier falsely, as a fabrication to attempt to assist your advocacy. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but since you are continuing to use it even when being called on it, then we all know now that it was not a legitimate oversight but intentional, that its a outright prevarication [lie].

Credibility is the coin of the realm in debate, and you are left coinless.

You mistake blowhard verbosity for solid content. Remarkable that you think one Science article renders the entire field of psychology moot. There's your conservative science denial showing its ugly head, even if you mask it with liberal editorial sources. If you would have worked past your affirmation bias further down your Google search just 3 entries, you would have seen this Nature piece that shows replication is much more complex than you surmise.

I said liberals generally have more education, and the Pew research backs that. Simple.

Whoops, you revealed your hand. Any debater knows that credibility means nothing in a round. Solid cards and a good handling of the flow are everything. You haven't "taught" debate a moment in your life, fraud.
 
You mistake blowhard verbosity for solid content. Remarkable that you think one Science article renders the entire field of psychology moot. There's your conservative science denial showing its ugly head, even if you mask it with liberal editorial sources. If you would have worked past your affirmation bias further down your Google search just 3 entries, you would have seen this Nature piece that shows replication is much more complex than you surmise.

I said liberals generally have more education, and the Pew research backs that. Simple.

Whoops, you revealed your hand. Any debater knows that credibility means nothing in a round. Solid cards and a good handling of the flow are everything. You haven't "taught" debate a moment in your life, fraud.

Why don't you pick out a few examples of the "blowhard verbosity"and lets just us discuss their merits... I call you on this as well, you have been overblown yourself; caught, too many times not to call you on it again. Inaccurate analysis of complex events proven now, your abilities and motivation beyond being highly suspect. You see, it was not just the article, it was a whole set of critical experiments under one umbrella study [ did you even read the link?... or feel too too highbrow for any of that yeoman's type work?] … well, I will let them explain it themselves:

“The study, which saw 270 scientists repeat experiments on five continents, was launched by psychologists in the US in response to rising concerns over the reliability of psychology research.

“There is no doubt that I would have loved for the effects to be more reproducible,” said*Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology who led the study at the University of Virgina. “I am disappointed, in the sense that I think we can do better.”


And I believe you, too, can do better. Your revealed attitude towards winning, not getting at either truth nor at clarity, is one reason why I stayed the hell away from debate competitions. Hardly any true substance, all style, marshaling of cards, some on delivery... just raw aggression and defense through arbitrary filters to "win". Teaching debate has a higher calling than coaching debate competitions it was obvious.

As to the degree of difficulty in scientific replication, only serves to help prove my point regarding psychology, the pseudo science, might as well be phrenology.

BTW, This what I got when I went to your nature website.

naturessentials.jpg

Be that as it may, I don't need to read that to understand that which deals with individuals and their unique brains. The obvious result is that it requires that you are going to have to factor in a whole lot of variability... which indicates how exact a science it really isn't.

Logical.
 
Back
Top Bottom