Donald Trump's 2016 General Election Campaign

[JohnT]

Ahhh. Did not know that.

[Deeg]

@jsgoddess

Just as much?

Absolutely. As I’ve pointed out, Sander’s anti-GMO and anti-NP easily matches up with GOP anti-AGW and anti-evolution.

@Fear_Itself

The major difference being, liberals punch up (Monsanto, nuclear power companies) and Republicans punch down (immigrants, minorities, women).

On the surface it might seem that way. However, the liberal fear of GMO leads to groups fighting against Golden Rice. The opposition had led to millions of preventable deaths in poor countries.

I am very pro-immigrant and I believe the far right anti-immigrant stance to be wrong but it doesn’t seem any more damaging to the poor than Greenpeace’s adamant opposition to Golden Rice. The left’s opposition to TPP will slow down the economic progress of some poor countries.

I will agree that many conservative fears are expressed in an uglier fashion than liberal fears. E.g. Trumps distrust of the Mexican-American judge is worse than Sander’s bashing of the rich.

[GIGObuster]

@Deeg

Absolutely. As I’ve pointed out, Sander’s anti-GMO and anti-NP easily matches up with GOP anti-AGW and anti-evolution.

On the surface it might seem that way. However, the liberal fear of GMO leads to groups fighting against Golden Rice. The opposition had led to millions of preventable deaths in poor countries.

Sorry but this is an accusation that omits the bipartisanship observed, the Conservatives also fear GMOs.

Stop pretending that liberals are just as anti-science as conservatives

For the most part, the results support Lewandowsky and Khan. GMO concern appears largely spread across the spectrum in this poll, and while it is somewhat stronger among Democrats (and, as we’ll see, especially strong on the far left), it is also very strong among Republicans and independents. For instance, the poll found that all three groups overwhelmingly support the labeling of foods containing GM ingredients (an idea the American Association for the Advancement of Science rejects): 90 percent of Republicans, 94 percent of Democrats, and 95 percent of independents were in favor.

Getting closer to a purely scientific issue, respondents were asked, “How concerned are you about genetically modified or genetically engineered food—Very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned or not at all concerned?” Seventy-one percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats, and 75 percent of independents said they were either “very” or “somewhat” concerned.

What’s more, those who did profess this level of concern then went on to answer a second question, in which they were asked more precisely what they were worried about. Twenty-five percent of concerned Republicans, 29 percent of concerned Democrats, and 25 percent of concerned independents answered “not safe to eat.” Meanwhile, 33 percent of concerned Republicans, 39 percent of concerned Democrats, and 37 percent of concerned independents answered “cause health problems.” (These are the clear-cut science deniers.)

So while there might be slightly more concern about GM foods among Democrats, overall concern is broad and appears substantially nonideological in nature—which makes sense if you think about the concerns as being motivated by people’s fears of consuming something that is supposedly icky or unnatural. Indeed, when asked in another survey question whether they would eat “genetically modified or genetically engineered fish,” 74 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of Democrats, and 71 percent of independents said “no.”

However, there is one important qualification. Although Democrats, Republicans, and independents do not look all that different on GMOs, it turns out that if you split Democrats and Republicans up into different ideological groups, you can discern more left-right differentiation on the issue (even as worries remain spread across the spectrum). The CBS News poll did just that. In addition to their party affiliation, people were also asked whether they self-identified as “very liberal,” “somewhat liberal,” “moderate,” “somewhat conservative,” and “very conservative.” When you break it down this way, 92 percent of “very liberal” respondents were either “somewhat” or “very” concerned about GMOs, compared with only 71 percent of “very conservative” respondents. (Those who were “somewhat liberal,” “moderate,” and “somewhat conservative” look pretty similar; their percentages are 79, 75, and 74, respectively.)

Well, I did warn you, but you are just happy to ignore items like that to continue your narrative of blaming just one side.

[wonky]

@Deeg

Absolutely. As I’ve pointed out, Sander’s anti-GMO and anti-NP easily matches up with GOP anti-AGW and anti-evolution.

Just to be absolutely clear, very few stances can in any way match up with anti-evolution. With GMOs (intellectual property), nuclear power (waste and danger), and global warming (economic impact, lack of options), you can at least say that there can be policy issues and that smart people might have to be involved in solving some problems.

But anti-evolution? That’s just ignorance for the sake of ignorance.

And you’d have to throw in fetal pain, abstinence-only sex ed, gay marriage and parenting, and probably a whole host of other things from the Republican platform. This isn’t counterable by Bernie Sanders being a woobot.

[Fear_Itself]

Trump on the First Amendment:

It is not “freedom of the press” when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!

The man is dangerous.

[Leaper]

Maybe he’s just trying to make “the media is in the tank for Clinton” a self fulfilling prophecy.

[Sherrerd]

@Fear_Itself

Trump on the First Amendment:The man is dangerous.

He has said he’s planning to close down “parts of the Internet” if given the chance. Just to protect us, of course!

Donald Trump Wants to Close Off Parts of the Internet

[raventhief]

@Sherrerd

He has said he’s planning to close down “parts of the Internet” if given the chance. Just to protect us, of course!
Republican Debate: Donald Trump Talks Closing Internet | TIME

He should start here. Big recruiting site, very sad!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

[GIGObuster]

@Fear_Itself

Trump on the First Amendment:The man is dangerous.

He just tossed FOX news under the bus!

(No, I’m not talking about the false rumor that FOX won a case to have the right to lie, that was only an affiliate in Florida - that figures - and an editorial dispute.)

There are many examples that show that FOX news has trouble with the truth.

New Study: 72 Percent of Fox News Climate Segments Are Misleading |...

http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/issues.php?issue=fox

Or course Trump has no trouble with many of those lies, it is OK because they are Republican.

[standingwave]

@Deeg

Absolutely. As I’ve pointed out, Sander’s anti-GMO and anti-NP easily matches up with GOP anti-AGW and anti-evolution.

On the surface it might seem that way. However, the liberal fear of GMO leads to groups fighting against Golden Rice. The opposition had led to millions of preventable deaths in poor countries.

I am very pro-immigrant and I believe the far right anti-immigrant stance to be wrong but it doesn’t seem any more damaging to the poor than Greenpeace’s adamant opposition to Golden Rice. The left’s opposition to TPP will slow down the economic progress of some poor countries.

I will agree that many conservative fears are expressed in an uglier fashion than liberal fears. E.g. Trumps distrust of the Mexican-American judge is worse than Sander’s bashing of the rich.

A recent thread concerning Golden Rice on Democratic Underground: 107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over GMOs. It appears that even on DU, the anti-GMO stance is a minority view. A very loud, vocal minority, to be sure. I wish that I could say the same about Republican anti-science positions which seem to be more mainstream GOP.

[wonky]

@standingwave

A recent thread concerning Golden Rice on Democratic Underground: 107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over GMOs. It appears that even on DU, the anti-GMO stance is a minority view. A very loud, vocal minority, to be sure. I wish that I could say the same about Republican anti-science positions which seem to be more mainstream GOP.

Compare the platforms and it’s not even close. There is no room for equivalence.

That doesn’t excuse the Democrats from the bullshit, though.

[elucidator]

@jsgoddess

…being a woobot.

Stolen! Mine, mine, mine! Rest of you back off, I got here first!

[Rick_Kitchen]

Trump says he’s running against the “crooked media”, so, yeah, he really would love to shut down the press.

[coremelt]

@jsgoddess

That doesn’t excuse the Democrats from the bullshit, though.

Sure the left has their loony wing. And it does exactly parallel the right wing in that leftist greenie types will often have an irrational fear of “chemicals”, “nuclear” and “genetically modified” and insist that their instinctive objections are more valuable than scientific evidence, eg it’s all about the “feels”. Try and have a rational discussion about nuclear power with most greens and you’ll get shouted down and accused of being a shill, exactly the same tactics Trump’s supporters are now using.

But the difference is, the mainstream Democrats don’t let those people set their policies or try and pander to them specifically, while we have the GOP openly pandering to the anti-science “we’re sick of experts” crowd and this started long before Trump came on the scene.

[bengangmo]

@Fear_Itself

Trump on the First Amendment:The man is dangerous.

To be frank…I agree with him on this point.

Of course, his value for false and mine are different.

But you shouldn’t be able to propagate provably false statements. Fox would be the first ones to be affected.

[Deeg]

@jsgoddess

But anti-evolution? That’s just ignorance for the sake of ignorance.

I don’t disagree. However, anti-evolution nonsense is largely harmless; can you point to a policy based on anti-evolution that leads to preventable deaths? The left’s aversion to GMO and NP (and the TPP to a lesser degree) is much more dangerous. The right’s ignorance regarding AGW is also dangerous so from my view they’re roughly equal.

[coremelt]

@Deeg

The left’s aversion to GMO and NP (and the TPP to a lesser degree) is much more dangerous.

It’s really not reasonable to put objection to the TPP in the same category as irrational anti-science fear of GMO’s and NP. There are plenty of rational fact based reasons to think that the TPP is a corporate power grab that will decrease national sovereignty in favour of corporate profits. Eg potentially it could be used to block new environmental or health and safety regulations if they can be shown to be effecting profits of international investors.

See here:
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/beware-tpps-investor-state-dispute-settlement-provision/

Same site has a compromise list of other objections to it.
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/tricks-trade-deal-six-big-problems-trans-pacific-partnership/

[Deeg]

I disagree but I will concede that the TPP is harder to quantify with science. I will stick with GMO and NP.

[JohnT]

New York Times investigatory piece reveals Paul Manfort received over $12 million in undisclosed cash payments fro Russian sources, may have violated foreign agency laws by not registering as a paid agent.

The Black Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Trump’s Campaign Chief - The New York Times

[Deeg]

@standingwave

A recent thread concerning Golden Rice on Democratic Underground: 107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over GMOs. It appears that even on DU, the anti-GMO stance is a minority view. A very loud, vocal minority, to be sure. I wish that I could say the same about Republican anti-science positions which seem to be more mainstream GOP.

And there are plenty of pro-GMO/NP liberals on this board (GIGO being a prominent one). Unfortunately they appear to be losing the battle within their party; NP is becoming even less popular and GMO labeling appears to be gaining steam. See Vermont (although California has rejected one so maybe there’s hope). The rise of Bernie seems to be a bad omen, though.