# Areas of agreement between conservatives and liberals **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435 "2014-12-05T19:09:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/81 "2014-12-08T19:24:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You might want to try reading your own site. That’s not what it says. It supports neither your own claim nor the one **BPC** made that you offered it in support of. > > **Budget Cadet Player** , ball’s in your court. What a misleading title on that article! It says, “Meet the Republicans who don’t believe climate change is real”, then goes on to list 19 Republican Senators, of which only 3-4 seem to be saying that climate change isn’t real. The article even admits it. This is what they have to say about John Thune: > [@](#): > > Thune is another Republican who admits a potential role for humans in climate change. In May he was asked if climate change exists and is caused by humans. “I’m not denying that,” he said. “I’m simply saying that the debate ought to be: What are we going to do about it, and at what cost?” So if Thune admits that climate change is real, and that humans are helping to cause it, what’s he doing on a list of ‘Republicans Who Don’t Believe Climate Change is Real’? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/82 "2014-12-08T19:38:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Cite? [http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/06/inhofe-senate-environment-committee](http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/06/inhofe-senate-environment-committee) Just as an example. [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/18/3568720/john-holdren-science-house-climate-hearing/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/18/3568720/john-holdren-science-house-climate-hearing/) There’s a bunch of dumbasses who don’t get it. Perhaps it’s an overstatement that they think it’s a hoax. But it is exceedingly common for them to apply some form of denialism - from the full-on “the earth is not warming, everything is fine, god will provide massive conspiracy blah blah blah” bullshit of Inhofe and his ilk to the “We don’t know what’s causing it” nonsense to the “It’s probably a good thing” line to “we couldn’t do anything without crippling our economy” to “we couldn’t do anything about it anyways”. What you won’t find much of is republicans who will openly say “climate change is real, we’re at fault, and the repercussions will be serious”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/83 "2014-12-08T19:52:58Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > [http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/06/inhofe-senate-environment-committee](http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/06/inhofe-senate-environment-committee) > > Just as an example. > > [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/18/3568720/john-holdren-science-house-climate-hearing/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/18/3568720/john-holdren-science-house-climate-hearing/) > > There’s a bunch of dumbasses who don’t get it. > > Perhaps it’s an overstatement that they think it’s a hoax. But it is exceedingly common for them to apply some form of denialism - from the full-on “the earth is not warming, everything is fine, god will provide massive conspiracy blah blah blah” bullshit of Inhofe and his ilk to the “We don’t know what’s causing it” nonsense to the “It’s probably a good thing” line to “we couldn’t do anything without crippling our economy” to “we couldn’t do anything about it anyways”. What you won’t find much of is republicans who will openly say “climate change is real, we’re at fault, and the repercussions will be serious”. It’s a gross overstatement. Here is your original claim: [QUOTE=Budget Player Cadet] Err, you do realize that the common line among congressional republicans is that global warming is a hoax, right? [/QUOTE] That’s not even close to true. I do appreciate you admitting that you overstated your point. But let’s keep in mind that when both you and GIGO tried to substantiate the claim, neither of you could even come close to doing so. So, maybe hold conservatives’ feet to the fire for stuff they actual believe and disagree with you on rather than misrepresent their actual positions. On preview, I see that Sam Stone saved me the work of making those points about GIGO’s “cite”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/84 "2014-12-08T23:45:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s not even close to true. I do appreciate you admitting that you overstated your point. But let’s keep in mind that when both you and GIGO tried to substantiate the claim, neither of you could even come close to doing so. Read it again and next time stop setting a straw man. What I said was that “ **most** claim that they do not know anything and deny that humans are responsible in large part.” > [@magellan01](#): > > So, maybe hold conservatives’ feet to the fire for stuff they actual believe and disagree with you on rather than misrepresent their actual positions. Of course misrepresenting a poster to claim others misrepresent conservatives seems to be OK. > [@magellan01](#): > > On preview, I see that Sam Stone saved me the work of making those points about GIGO’s “cite”. And Sam found one that should not be on the list, but he point stands: others have noticed the abysmal levels of denial in the current Republican party: [http://thehill.com/opinion/bill-press/222711-the-party-of-denial](http://thehill.com/opinion/bill-press/222711-the-party-of-denial) > [@](#): > > So, if there’s one issue that should not be a partisan issue, this is it. After all, we’re talking about saving the planet. Surely Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on that. John McCain and Barack Obama did in 2008. But, sadly, that’s not the case today. Congress remains hopelessly deadlocked on climate change because Republicans, for whatever strange reason — be it ignorance or campaign contributions — either deny it’s happening, deny human activity is responsible or deny it’s serious enough to worry about. > > California Gov. Jerry Brown, in fact, stirred up a little trouble back in May when he asserted there was “virtually no Republican” in Washington who accepted the science about climate change. As it turns out, he was right on target. Politifact tested his claim and rated it “Mostly True.” **Out of 278 Republicans currently in Congress, they found only eight — or 3 percent — who believe in climate change. For the record, they are Sens. Bob Corker (Tenn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), John Thune (S.D.) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), and Reps. Chris Smith (N.J.), Michael Grimm (N.Y.) and Rodney Frelinghuysen (N.J.**). > > Sadly, the other 270 Republicans follow the lead of know-nothing Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who denies any link between human activity and climate change. On May 11, Rubio told ABC’s Jonathan Karl: “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.” > > Rubio and his fellow climate change deniers aren’t scientists. They should just shut up, listen to the scientists — all 800 of them — and take action. This is too critical an issue to be playing politics with any longer. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/85 "2014-12-09T00:34:22Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So if Thune admits that climate change is real, and that humans are helping to cause it, what’s he doing on a list of ‘Republicans Who Don’t Believe Climate Change is Real’? Context is missing here to claim that. As one of the very few Republicans that do accept the science, the article makes the contrast with the few ones that do not, “ **Thune is another Republican who admits a potential role for humans in climate change** ”, The problem with Thune is that no sooner he claims to follow the science, he does hedge by reporting that no matter that most scientists see the human component in the warming as the most important one, Thune declared we are only **a factor** , then he goes also for the denial of what most economists reported that we should do something now with less cost than doing it later with a very high cost, and there is also the full of bull issue of using the jobs card: > **[Top Republican Finally Acknowledges Human-Caused Climate Change](https://www.businessinsider.com/john-thune-on-human-caused-climate-change-2014-11)** > > Is this the beginning of something big? > [@](#): > > “There are a number of factors that contribute to that, including human activity. The question is, what are we going to do about it and at what cost?” > > It’s a notable statement from a Republican leader — stating that the climate is changing and there is likely a human factor at play. It’s also significant that he asked the question many of his colleagues haven’t dared to: “What will we do about it?” > > However, the other side of the sword came down when Thune said last week’s US–China climate deal, “was a bad deal.” > > Thune went on to express his concern that the deal constituted “all pain and no gain for the American people,” and would result in increased utility costs for American citizens, adding that “I don’t expect that we’re going to ever see China agree to it in the end.” > > Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, was interviewed as well and expressed an entirely different opinion. “In order to reach that 2030 target, the Chinese are going to have to build a clean energy portfolio that is as big as the entire US energy fleet,” he said. “So, between now and 2030, they’re going to build an immense amount of clean energy. That’s actually going to be good for American suppliers into those projects. A lot of this is American design.” The Republicans that do not look at the science, that claim that this is not going to be a problem or are misguided enough to not do anything about it are legion; in the end the result is the same, they push only inaction. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/86 "2014-12-09T15:57:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Read it again and next time stop setting a straw man. What I said was that “ **most** claim that they do not know anything and deny that humans are responsible in large part.” Then you can prove the veracity of THAT claim, which your cite did not do either. And to save time, please do read your cites before you offer them as substantiation. Alternatively, maybe get a bigger shovel. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/87 "2014-12-09T16:26:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Then you can prove the veracity of THAT claim, which your cite did not do either. And to save time, please do read your cites before you offer them as substantiation. Alternatively, maybe get a bigger shovel. Again showing all that you miss the point is not my problem, I did not said what you claimed I did, and it was Politifact who asked the Republicans, my point stands as you are still mistaken that what claim is an absolute, the reasons for the inaction from the Republicans run from exagerated costs (that implies denial of what economists have reported too) to complete denial of the science. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/88 "2014-12-09T16:35:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again showing all that you miss the point is not my problem, I did not said what you claimed I did, and it was Politifact who asked the Republicans, my point stands as you are still mistaken that what claim is an absolute, the reasons for the inaction from the Republicans run from exagerated costs (that implies denial of what economists have reported too) to complete denial of the science. You made a claim. Substantiate it. And don’t forget the “most” part. And as far as what your claim is or isn’t, was or wasn’t, one just needs to read it. Here, let me help. Here is your original claim: [QUOTE=GIGObuster] To be precise most claim that they do not know anything and deny that humans are responsible in large part. [/QUOTE] And here is YOU restating it: [QUOTE=GIGObuster] What I said was that “most claim that they do not know anything and deny that humans are responsible in large part.” [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/89 "2014-12-09T16:59:03Z")
**magellan01** , WADR I think you are missing the point. "What are we going to do about it, and at what cost?” is a question which cannot be answered without touching on areas on which there is no real consensus, scientific or otherwise. Hence the effort to classify Republicans who ask it as denialists. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/90 "2014-12-09T17:04:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You made a claim. Substantiate it. And don’t forget the “most” part. And as far as what your claim is or isn’t, was or wasn’t, one just needs to read it. Here, let me help. > > Here is your original claim: > And here is YOU restating it: :rolleyes: I did substantiate it already, the article does not report that all are deniers of the science, just that most claim ignorance (“Meet the deniers in congress” does not = all are deniers) (“I’m not a scientist” became a mantra among Republicans during the last elections - not likely as a coincidence, it was a tactic made to avoid a lot of inconvenient questions - ) and many Repubicans report that humans are not a big factor, or deny that this is a problem at all. IOW, I did specify the gamut of positions made and pointed at the many options used by the repubicans in congress \*, the final point was the realization that it doesn’t matter the reason, all these Republican options result in innaction. - (a supermayority in oposition to the supermayority of conservative scientists, and I should say that that supermayority of Republicans in congress is now in oposition of many supporters of clean energy among the conservatives too) ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/91 "2014-12-09T19:33:41Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > In Washington, DC, I believe both sides of the aisle agree Redskins’ owner Daniel Snyder sucks. Heh heh. I’m pretty solidly conservative, and I’d love to get worked up about government intrusion into private matters, but seriously. “Redskins”?! I know it’s had that name for a long time, but we wouldn’t tolerate a team named the Niggars, and a playoff series between the Crackers and the Beaners would be out of the questiion. Change the damn name already. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/92 "2014-12-09T21:04:59Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > I know Krugman’s views. He’s a Keynesian, which is fine with me. What is not fine with me is reading a new article in the New York Times every week that tirelessly argues for increased stimulus spending, as we were racking up trillion-dollar deficits. He got his $800 billion stimulus, and the results were mixed, at best. He treaded the path toward blind ideology as the trumpeter of “more spending, more spending, more spending!!” :dubious: What [such articles](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/opinion/paul-krugman-recovery-at-last.html?_r=0) reflect is Krugman’s deeply informed knowledge that in 2009 nothing else would have worked. > [@](#): > > You often hear claims, sometimes from pundits who should know better, that nobody predicted a sluggish recovery, and that this proves that mainstream macroeconomics is all wrong. The truth is that many economists, myself included, predicted a slow recovery from the very beginning. Why? > > The answer, in brief, is that there are recessions and then there are recessions. Some recessions are deliberately engineered to cool off an overheated, inflating economy. For example, the Fed caused the 1981-82 recession with tight-money policies that temporarily sent interest rates to almost 20 percent. And ending that recession was easy: Once the Fed decided that we had suffered enough, it relented, interest rates tumbled, and it was morning in America. > > But “postmodern” recessions, like the downturns of 2001 and 2007-9, reflect bursting bubbles rather than tight money, and they’re hard to end; even if the Fed cuts interest rates all the way to zero, it may find itself pushing on a string, unable to have much of a positive effect. As a result, you don’t expect to see V-shaped recoveries like 1982-84 — and sure enough, we didn’t. > > This doesn’t mean that we were fated to experience a seven-year slump. We could have had a much faster recovery if the U.S. government had ramped up public investment and put more money in the hands of families likely to spend it. But the Obama stimulus was much too small and short-lived — as many of us warned, in advance, it would be — and since 2010 what we have actually seen, thanks to scorched-earth Republican opposition on all fronts, are unprecedented cutbacks in government spending, especially investment, and in government employment. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/93 "2014-12-09T21:06:13Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > Heh heh. I’m pretty solidly conservative, and I’d love to get worked up about government intrusion into private matters, but seriously. “Redskins”?! I know it’s had that name for a long time, but we wouldn’t tolerate a team named the Niggars, and a playoff series between the Crackers and the Beaners would be out of the questiion. Change the damn name already. RED-SKIN, n. A North American Indian, whose skin is not red — at least not on the outside. – Ambrose Bierce ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/94 "2014-12-09T21:37:03Z")
My answer to the OP: 1. The government should base taxation upon your ability to pay. Rich people need to pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes than poor people. 2. Prosecutors should be immune from lawsuits over their official actions. So should politicians. 3. Some people shouldn’t have control over what chemicals they put into their bodies. 4. We need to maintain a massive military and use it to advance our interests overseas. 5. Public schools should inculcate correct morals in youth. 6. The government needs to be involved in healthcare, and some things should not be left up to patients and their doctors. 7. We need a large state security apparatus, the inner workings of which must be kept secret. 8. During economic downturns, we should (as Keynsian economics dicatates) increase spending, because it will act as a stimulus; during flush economic times, we should (as classical economics dictates) increase spending, because, hey, free money. 9. Massive budget deficits are a real problem and a threat to our future that must be dealt with in the future, but not right now. 10. The ever-increasing power of the executive branch is a cause of concern, brought to notice every time the wrong kind of person is elected president. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/95 "2014-12-10T22:35:20Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Bullshit. He made it very clear that the stimulus was not enough, and then proceeded to offer us the reasons _why_ he believed that was so. And here’s the important part: > > _He was right_. I had a model a few years ago. It said if we had simply stayed in Iraq for 10 more years we would have won the war and installed a stable democracy. I guess that makes me the Paul Krugman of foreign policy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435.md?page=4)