View Poll Results: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

Voters
74. You may not vote on this poll
  • This, the debt limit

    6 8.11%
  • Global Warming

    7 9.46%
  • Evolution

    10 13.51%
  • The Consequences of Gay Marriage

    15 20.27%
  • Trickle-Down Economics

    12 16.22%
  • Makers vs. Takers

    6 8.11%
  • Immigration

    2 2.70%
  • The Drug War

    7 9.46%
  • Voting Rights

    0 0%
  • Reproductive Rights

    9 12.16%
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 139

Thread: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

  1. #41
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    The problem with this thread is that it takes a bunch of blanket issues and presumes the left wing argument is automatically correct while the right wing argument is indubitably wrong without actually listing the premise for either sides' arguments. It is, ultimately, the political equivalent to the play ground retort "my daddy is tougher than your daddy" with the obvious difference being the play ground retort actually has a specific measure to discuss.
    Really, I'm stronger than both daddy's.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Southwest AZ
    Last Seen
    08-12-17 @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,285

    Re: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    To disregard the premise of this poll and the quoted article as mere opinion is itself delusional. The GOP has a repeated and well-documented habit of disregarding verified data, the broad consensus of experts, accumulated evidence, and mere common sense in all of the given examples.
    And therein, you proved my point. To suggest your premise is approved by a 'broad consensus' is inaccurate. Liberals access the opinions of those who agree with them. THAT is a proven well-documented habit of their own. And 'common sense' does not mean that the majority opinion is always correct, it merely means that more people have the wrong grasp of reality.

  3. #43
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,859

    Re: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator
    The problem with this thread is that it takes a bunch of blanket issues and presumes the left wing argument is automatically correct while the right wing argument is indubitably wrong without actually listing the premise for either sides' arguments. It is, ultimately, the political equivalent to the play ground retort "my daddy is tougher than your daddy" with the obvious difference being the play ground retort actually has a specific measure to discuss.
    It doesn't seem to me that this is the case, unless you take the OP to claim that because there is something on which the GOP lacks a perfect grasp on reality, the Democrats must have a very firm grasp on reality.

    Out of any pair of people, I can ask where one of them has gone wrong without implying that the other is perfect, or even better.

  4. #44
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman909 View Post
    And therein, you proved my point. To suggest your premise is approved by a 'broad consensus' is inaccurate. Liberals access the opinions of those who agree with them. THAT is a proven well-documented habit of their own. And 'common sense' does not mean that the majority opinion is always correct, it merely means that more people have the wrong grasp of reality.
    To dismiss outright the broad consensus of anything is nihilism.
    "Obamacare delenda est"

  5. #45
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,777

    Re: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Horrible misunderstanding of conservatives. Conservatives believe in cooperation. We believe in voluntary cooperation and not coerced cooperation. The effect of coercion is usually destructive, creating division. However, voluntary cooperation leads to appreciation and mutual respect.
    You have to remember, the Republican Party is not a party of conservatives, but of neo-conservatives which is an entirely different thing. I would say people have a pretty decent understanding of neo-cons, they just don't understand what to call them.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #46
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,769

    Re: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by rjay View Post
    Feed the elephant well, the mice may find some undigested tidbits by waiting and then sifting through whatever crap might trickle down the elephants leg.
    Surely there were rich folks who would've liked that, but no one would ever say something like that out loud. No politician would ever admit to supporting something like that. Proposing legislation like that would be the surest form of political suicide. No one proposed any legislation remotely close to that. Our economic policies didn't resemble that at all. You're trying to rewrite the history of the 1980s. You may as well say that the Soviets won The Cold War and that you and I are typing this in Russian.

    As far as the effectiveness of Reaganomics is concerned, the GDP took off like a rocket. Unemployment and inflation went way down. Median household income went up and the middle class experienced a major improvement in the standard of living. The middle class made more money AND payed lower taxes.

    Some people hate rich people so much that they consider it a loss for the middle class whenever the wealthy thrive, regardless of how much the middle class prospers. It's like a little kid crying about getting an ice cream cone, just because his sister got one too.
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Southwest AZ
    Last Seen
    08-12-17 @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,285

    Re: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    To dismiss outright the broad consensus of anything is nihilism.
    "Inaccurate" does not mean "dismiss outright", it merely questions validity and promotes or motivates further research.

  8. #48
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

    Re: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

    well its not fair to paing the GOP with one brush so lets state that first and foremost but going of a stereotypical platform i say equal rights for gays, reproductive rights are the two largest "sterotypical" failures of the GOP


    but again i know tons of GOP members that totally support equal rights for gays and are pro-choice with limits like most people
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #49
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,777

    Re: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    but again i know tons of GOP members that totally support equal rights for gays and are pro-choice with limits like most people
    But they are not the ones in charge of the party, nor in charting the direction of it's platform. After the last election, the GOP sent out a questionnaire to it's members asking where they went wrong. I responded, giving my reasons why they failed so utterly, also saying that because my reasons don't fit into their ultra-right-wing, hyper-religious ideology, it will be completely and totally ignored. I was right, when the GOP released the "results" of the poll, they didn't even mention anyone who didn't respond from a hyper-religious perspective. They just don't care about anyone who doesn't fit within their narrow extremist view.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  10. #50
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    What do you mean? To what natural law do you refer?
    I can see that you have at least given substantial time and thought to your economic philosophy, therefore for you to not know what natural law refers and at the same time to speak of “social contract” seems unbelievable to me. So… I won’t be explaining that today. If you really don’t know you’ve got some study to do before firming up your philosophy, try starting with Locke and Rousseau.





    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    It seems to me that they are, though they can each exist in the context of a single relationship at different times. So, if that's what you mean, then sure, I agree. The relevant question is just how to "cash out" in a clear manner when and to what extent each is appropriate.
    No. Cooperating freely apart from governmental influence is common and is part of basic economic theory. For example: Specialization creates efficiency; we can freely choose to specialize in our chosen field and then exchange our surplus goods and services without coercion at a reduced cost to other parties. Cooperation without coercion. The competition is in providing the best product at the lowest price within one’s specialization in order to liquidate surplus goods and services. Even within our specialization cooperation occurs when demand outpaces supply from a specific vendor. The vendor may ally with another vendor to supply steep demand.



    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Everything after the "therefore" doesn't seem to follow from what goes before it.
    It does follow because conservatives understand that cooperation at every level is not dependent on government. Conservatives do not seek to enact unnecessary laws, depending instead on market forces to correct inequities as they develop.

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Two points:

    1) Cooperation is not necessarily a function of the consent of the governed. In certain things, government rightly coerces people whether they consent or not. Again, crime is an example. Ask any thief whether they consent to laws against theft, and my intuition tells me that they probably do not so consent. But nevertheless, they are forced to do so.

    We can think of even more general instances. Civil rights in the south is a pretty good example: government forced cooperation despite the consent of the governed, and it was right to do so. As a general rule, I would argue that we can infer some accurate propositions about the social contract, and where those are in process of being violated, government should force compliance, regardless of who consents and who does not.
    It needs to be said here, that you should carefully read what you have written. If “government rightly coerces” without consent, you do not have cooperation. You have authoritarianism.

    “Consent” means using the democratic process, while protecting the voting minority’s rights.

    Crime is a poor example of coercion without consent. Arresting one for criminal activity is a protective function, appropriate to government. Criminal law also has the consent of the people.


    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    2) Who consents to what, and who subscribes to which morals, it not something that is set in stone. It's often a matter of education and belief. Especially where beliefs are simply false, and those false beliefs lead to a lack of consent where consent ought to be voluntary, again, government should force cooperation.
    You misunderstand consent. The outcome of a vote is consent, if and when all rights are protected, and the law remains within the framework of the constitution (this includes the legislative process). Moral sensibilities of the larger society may and will be embedded within the vote itself

    Two more points:

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    1) One thing I infer from the fact that human beings come together to cooperate for survival is that there is a social contract. A contract implies mutual action, and fulfillment of any end of the bargain is not properly categorized as charity. The simple fact is that we cooperate to ensure mutual survival. One critical aspect of this is that those who do comparatively better help those who do comparatively worse, even if the difference is due to some congenital difference in ability. The reason for this is that when there is a society and a social economy such as ours, no one earns anything by dint of their own labor.
    To the extent that cooperation is mutually beneficial, I am all for it.

    As for the “social contract”, one must understand its philosophical underpinnings of natural law in order to understand that there is a limit to what the social contract entitles one to.

    One's labor is an essential capital for developing their own private property and that must be protected.

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    It's quite easy to demonstrate this. We could imagine taking someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett and transporting them, as young men, to, say, Mesopotamia in the year 2900 B.C. Do either of them build exactly what they have built in our contemporary society? Of course not. They obviously can't. They exist in a time when the correct resources are not available...but that's the whole point. Their fortunes have required inputs which are only generated by a society such as ours. Ergo, their fortunes are not fully their own.
    Not so; every contemporary in their society did have access to the correct resources, and are not entitled to the labor that those men added to the resources that they fairly acquired. Except to the extent that consent or charity require.

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    2) The thought you just expressed was fairly common in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The simple fact is that it didn't work. It resulted in a huge harvest of human misery that really wasn't necessary. Had it continued, it would have resulted in civil wars...and there is at least a plausible analysis which suggests that WWI was partially a result of this line of thinking. Ditto the Great Depression.
    Actually I would posit that it did work. That is why people from all over the world came here to build this great country. At times there was misery and abuse, but in general it was that philosophy that produced capital formation and an elevated standard of living for the entire world. I will also suggest that that philosophy is doomed where morality and charity do not exist. I am also not opposed to antitrust laws, depending on how they are enforced.



    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Well, I am not, but that's only because I have all the relevant facts, the correct understanding, and the proper motivations about wires and electrical sockets. Your stated point was that coercion creates resentment. I agree, but pointed out why this is irrelevant, at least just as such.

    Now, if you want to argue that certain instances of coercion rightly create resentment, because the people being coerced have the relevant facts, correct understanding, and proper motivation, all of which militate against the impetus of the coercion, I'm all ears. But so far, I haven't seen that.
    Think of two situations.

    In the first a man waits at his mailbox for a welfare check to arrive, with distain in his heart he takes the check that is two days late and cusses the government agency that has failed to deliver his check on time.

    The second man finds a charitable man at the local church, and receives a reprieve from the hardship he has been experiencing after a two day delay for the purpose of charitable collection. The man is grateful and appreciative, making new friends and opportunities.


    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    It shouldn't be, unless you are genuinely living outside the bounds of any benefits which society bestows upon you. The fact that you're using the internet would make me suspicious of any such claims.
    Not claiming that no government is good. That’s a strawman. Of course public projects for the general welfare, with consent, are appropriate. I am a proponent of infrastructure investments by government. The cronyism and pocket padding is what I object to.



    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    I used to buy this line, but I don't any longer. It seems to me that there probably is an objectivity to morality, even if moral principles lack the same ontological status as rocks and clouds.
    Yes, but morality is not the sole perview of government, morality resides in the everyday decisions of each person. A collective notion of morality will inevitable be enshrined in law and therefore gains consent. And yet at times the law errors and requires pushback. Is it a greater moral principal to protect ones right to keep earnings from labor, or to provide Obama phones?


    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Well, I think cooperation vs. competition is more about economics than politics, though the two obviously go hand in hand. I would be interested to hear a little more about humility and hubris.
    See here starts in earnest about 6 minutes.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TrxkAGxtcE

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •