The Democrats will win whoever they put up for POTUS

These conservative/liberal debates are ridiculous anyway. Labels only replace thought.

People should deal in good ideas. Good ideas aren't found in just one place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do not consider pollution reduction as only a liberal idea or science research either. They both fall under a balanced way of thinking and both sides believe in them it is just to what extent. As an example science research on climate change is funded by both parties to find answers to why is it happening and is it happening at all. Scientists are doing research today to show what is going on but many times those in Congress won't listen to who they are paying to find answers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, the basic belief that conservatism espouses is that traditions, mores and historical methods of doing things should be preserved, and new ideas/concepts should either be rejected or de-prioritized to preserve those traditions. Thus at a basic level conservatism would tend to oppose new research and changes in industry to reduce pollution. Liberalism/progressivism, on the other hand, are the opposite. Progressivism believes in scientific research, changes in social organization and changes in economic models are important to improving the human condition. Liberalism supports changes in governmental structures to protect the rights of the individual, which is the structural argument for pollution regulation.

Hmm. I guess I have two issues with that:

1) Neither party represents either conservatism or liberalism any more. Although democrats are generally more liberal, they have been consistently adopting more conservative principles to capture more of the independent voters.

2) The GOP has gone on record opposing research into climate change, and seem to celebrate ignorance of science. "Well, I am not a scientist, but I . . ." is a phrase that the GOP created as a way to counter claims of climate change denial, and polls show that that phrase resonates with Republican voters. Indeed, polls consistently show that democrats support science research more strongly than republicans. From a Jan 2015 Pew Poll, describing what our government should work on:
Dealing with global warming R-15% D-54%
Protecting the environment R-35% D-66%
Supporting scientific research R-33% D-51%
Working on energy solutions R-37% D-51%

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Both parties vote to fund scientific research. It's just what types of research they fund separates them but both fund research in different fields at times and together at other times. While one party isn't funding research of one kind or another there are other countries that are researching things that both parties aren't funding so research still goes on.

 

Agreed. Democrats just vote to fund it far more often.

 

You know I'm sure that the private sector is always researching things as well. There are billions spent on many areas by the private sector so if it isn't funded by the Congress then it will probably be funded by the private sector. As an example the Stem Cell research was not being funded in America for a short period of time but was being researched in other countries like England.

 

Well, what is ridiculous is the tunnel vision which confines and blinds ideologues of any ideology. Yeah, labels do replace rational thought. Unfortunate, but true, it's part of being human. It's how we process information. The human mind likes shortcuts and labels allow us to bypass rational thought. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. The real issue should be, how do we produce better informed and more rational voters? A start would be to remove all the special interest money and all the political advertisements from our polity and to ensure elected officials do not have interests which conflict with those of the voters whom they are suppose to represent.

 

Definitely! I didn't mean to imply that political parties are the only entities funding science - just that Democrats tend to fund it more often than Republicans here in the US.

 

The major problem is that Congress spends money they do not have and that's why many times Republicans try to put a hold on things.

 

Both parties spend money on what they think is important. Republicans more often spend on the military, Democrats more often spend on science. Both parties excel at spending money we don't have.

 

The democrats might win whomever they run as president, because their base is not very bright and is easy to lie to. For example, the racial riots in Baltimore and all the other cities over the past year, are blamed on the Republicans, yet all these riot cities are controlled by the democrats. The democrats have screwed up these with poor policy. To cover this up, they lie to their base, and blame the other guy, with their base not having a clue. Once the number of morons reaches 51% the democrats will be able to win all the time.

I often thought the high literacy rates due to public education was due to liberal incompetence. But I think now it is part of a plan to dumb down their base, so it can't read and do research. At that point, it will just accept anything.

 

Funny, I don't recall reading that the Bloods and Crips were registered Democrats

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure you have a census report of the people rioting to show that the rioters are, in fact, primarily Democrats?

 

As your example shows, basic research is done by governments or it is not done. When the US canceled the big collider, for example, it was European governments that went ahead - no private industry could ever justify such a thing.

Most large corporations in Western countries have cut their spending on research, and none of them since the legendary Bell Labs (a government regulated monopoly) ever spent much on basic stuff anyway - even relevant to their commercial operations, let alone free range inquiry.

So what the US Congress refuses to fund, the Chinese or German or Japanese or Korean or Russian governments - not any private industry - will be picking up.

Fortunately, a lot of research can be done for little money; the US has never spent half as much in a year (in inflation corrected dollars) on basic environmental research as it has just spent on purchasing one aircraft carrier. http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/NSF_0.jpg

The money spent on the military is ten or twenty times the money spent on non-military science - so by that description the Republicans spend at least ten times as much money that we don't have.

Also, the Republicans are responsible for the fact that we don't have the money, since they are the Party responsible for cutting taxes on rich people since 1980.

So blaming "both parties" for the last forty years of deficit spending overlooks basic arithmetic. This financial mess, crash and all, has been a one Party creation.

Which is one of the several major reasons the Republican Party candidate for President should have no chance of election or even a respectable showing. But that's not the way to bet, is it.

 

Well at least they are smarter than the so called conservatives. At least, they Democrats are mostly rational, at least science matters to Democrats. Democrats don't hold these strange notions about how raped women won't get pregnant. You do know, Fox News viewers have repeatedly been found to be the most ill informed of all media consumers? Even folks who watch no news shows know more than your conservative fellows.

Well, as dumb as you think liberals are, they are smarter than you and your fellow conservatives my friend. That is one reason why the vast majority of scientists are Democrats. So you think literacy is a liberal plan to dumb down the population.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I guess you and your Republican fellows like illiterate folks. Well, the fact is you and your Republican fellows are highly reliant on the ignorant voter (e.g. Fox News).

 

No doubt, however those who are receiving the special interest money are the same ones who would have to outlaw that same money. Therein lies the rub

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Name calling on both sides of every issue does nothing either however since it's neither helpful nor accurate. Not all conservatives are idiots watching Fox News and all conservative ideas aren't bad ideas (same holds for liberals and liberal ideas).

 

Indeed, therein lies the rub.

No, not everyone on the left or right are idiots and there are good ideas on both sides. However, the human beast, is easily manipulated. And not all of use share the same goals and objectives. A few years ago former GE CEO Jack Welch accused the Department of Labor of fudging the unemployment numbers. Jack is a smart boy. He knew better. Jack was attempting to deceive people for ulterior reasons. Unfortunately, the Republican Party, being a minority party, is more heavily reliant on deception than our Democratic friends as Democrats are a more populist party. It might be more accurate to say our Republican friends are more reliant on gullibility.

In the end we are all human, we are all subject to our emotions, some more than others. And our emotions are key influences and drivers of our decision making. Smart people do dumb things. Smart people make some very dumb decisions. Cognitive biases are very real and we all have them, some more than others. I draw the line when folks refuse to acknowledge fact because their cognitive dissonances will not allow them to recognize fact. I can't count how many times in Sciforums people have simply ignored inconvenient facts.

 

That's what I've always said.

 

It is called political expedience.

• Knowing that single-payer would not receive popular support, Obama and many other democrats, who have been on record as supporting single-payer as their primary healthcare goal, simply took an incremental approach.
  
• Romney does not reflect the entire party, otherwise turnout would have been much higher, and this is a very strong reason why. Why else are republicans leading the charge to repeal Obamacare?
  
• Yet Obama removed the work requirements for food stamps.
• Flip-flop on support of wars. Voted for them, claimed they were lied to, promised to pull out but delayed, did pull out but failed to support potential power vacuum.
  
• "The next day on October 24, 2001, the Act passed the House 357 to 66, with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent."
• Yet Medicare eligibility and enrollment has received a huge surge since Obamacare.

Huh, that graph was actually titled "More Democrats Take Liberal Positions..." Or are you debating whether left is equivalent to "liberal"?

Apparently you could not be bothered to simply view that animated graph of political ideology. It clearly showed that over the last 20 years republicans moved more left and then both parties moved toward equivalent extremes.

Support that claim with more than questionably objective news articles.

Well, since you admit ignorance, your opinion is irrelevant at best and indicative of your ignorance at worst.

 

Definitely. I agree that the reason was primarily practical - but doesn't change the direction that the democrats have been heading.

 

Who said anyone "made a conscious decision" to move left? Why would that be necessary? The data does not try to infer motive or cause. "More Democrats take liberal positions" is factual and (at least should be) self-explanatory. It is a simple matter of what has happened, not why or how. That "Democrats have become more consistent in adopting liberal positions over the last 20 years" mean that they "have consistently moved to the left over the last 20 years". There is no other way to parse that. Or are you are debating whether left is equivalent to "liberal"?

I would invite you to show where I have made any claim of cause for this effect. In the absence of such a claim, it would seem that your argument is largely a strawman.

Earlier results could have possibly been an artifact of single-issue voters, who align politically over one issue regardless of other discrepancies. I do not know. The contrary to your suggestion could also be true...that the parties have aligned better with their base voters over the years. Political expediency would indicate the latter is true to some degree.