People of all political stripes exhibit human nature and all the flaws that entails. This isn’t a right vs. left thing.
He was right. The pro-slavery Democrats were the conservatives of their era, and the abolitionists were not only progressives, but somewhat radical. You can be as rude as you want in dismissing the facts…but you’re dismissing the facts.
I can grant you this one, but Obama was right regarding the issue of woman getting less pay, the problem here is an exaggerated point.
Even if one does give you this one example, the examples that I was talking about in the thread are not related to social issues, but with items supported by science.
Just one more point, you need to notice that you are not dealing with the problems found in your examples, and you need to become aware of how misleading the sources that you are using are.
In the context of this discussion this is very important, because it is like fighting with both arms tied behind one’s back.
You’re right! And because you can dredge up one particular issues where liberals are less than 100% correct on the semantics (the wage gap does exist, there’s no denying it, the only questions are what causes it and what to do about it), this clearly means there’s some real equivalency to the guys who, among a multitude of other things, deny global warming and think voting for Trump is a good idea.
But hey, Obama and Trump have both been accused of being fascists, so that must mean the truth is somewhere in the middle, right?
It’s like with lying. Clinton has lied. Trump has lied. But if you want to imply that “both sides do it too” is a good response to the critique that Trump’s lies are unprecedented in nature, scope, and scale, then you are wrong, and you are part of the problem.
Which is why instead of emphasizing the legality of abortions, you hit them with the number of abortions. Offer them a party that may disagree with them on policy but share the goal of reduced abortions, and get that done, or a party who they agree with on policy but can never seem to reduce abortions. Red states, abstinence programs, lack of contraception availability all create and promote more unwanted births than liberal states and liberal policies. It may not win over all types, but I bet Democrats can get the younger ones who are more willing to listen to reason and act pragmatically
The type of late term abortions that Trump described, where mothers elect to destroy their fetus the day before birth, NEVER happens. It is always accompanied by extraordinary circumstances that affect the health of the fetus and/or mother. I’m not worried about lies and distortion because I know that given the correct information and facts, some people will be convinced.
Besides, how often has Donald talked about evangelical social causes in this election? Much less than any of his GOP predecessors. There are enough Republicans who have deserted him over this to make a difference in the final tally, and I’m betting some of them would be convinced.
If you want to eliminate abortions, the choice is clear: Go with Democrats who have a track record of reducing abortions and reducing the need for abortions, or Republicans who pay lip service but end up simply driving mothers to illegal ways to eliminate the fetus while not making a dent in the total number of abortions
Presumably HRC is not just making up these numbers when she tweets about the “wage gap”, but is relying on a “scientific” survey of wages. Still, you and I both know it’s bullshit. Obama and Clinton are both using “incomplete information (that ends up misleading many) being passed as the whole truth” (to borrow a phrase), right?
I haven’t gone back to look at which issues you specifically were talking about, but I did notice a lot of stereotypical social issues being brought up in this thread (school busing, trans bathrooms, affirmative action, etc).
Again, there is a lot that is missed and your sources usually mislead you, and you also missed that I was giving you this item, but in the end you have an **iffy **point to counteract all the other howlers from the sources you rely on. Remember, it is not my problem if you end up getting burned by constantly ignoring that the sources you use are a big part of the problem.
False, both as a description of objective fact, and as a summary of the liberal position on gender-based wage inequality.
What sources are you talking about? I used a PolitiFact article that had an embedded Obama campaign ad from YouTube. I think most liberals consider PolitiFact to be golden, and Obama campaign ads to be the gospel truth from the mouth of the anointed one himself. What sources are misleading me here? Obama?
I was talking about the ones before, the one complaining about non emission technologies was a very sorry biased source.
The ones that pointed at that mistake and never corrected it. I have seen that “fact” (the fact that they point at Politifact is only half the history) 
pointed by many other right wing sources that only point at the early Politifact bit about this issue that was not quite accurate. They forget to point out to the one were Obama does seem to listen to the fact checkers and made it more accurate.
Incidentally, then it follows that you fell into an error yourself by not noticing that the tweet from Hillary did say the line in the more accurate way rather than the mistaken way that Obama had it early.
Bottom line: your point here is a very moot one, and you have not explained properly how your other sources got the other items you point at wrong; but most importantly, it seems that you are not willing to drop them even if they misled you many times already. (Except Politifact, they are better at noticing how others do correct their mistakes).
BTW I knew that guy was familiar, here is science writer Peter Hadfield explaining how dumb Louder with Crowder is:
They are worried about being villianized because they know history is not going to be kind to them.
Perhaps they sense a great shift is about to occur. And when the dust settles the nation will have moved forward, while they’ve been left in the ‘discredited and disrespected’ dustbin of history, the remnants of the most shameful political campaign ever waged.
I never called science I don’t like a ‘political view’. But it’s a conceit to believe that just because more scientists are liberal than conservative, that somehow liberalism is more ‘scientific’. There could be many reasons why liberals are attracted to academia, or why conservatives are not. These days, the reason could be as simple as colleges being more hostile to conservatives, or liberal bias makes it harder for conservatives to achieve tenured professorships, or perhaps the environment itself does not appeal to people of a more conservative nature. Or maybe it’s a combination of many factors.
As for abortion… That is an issue beyond science, because there is no bright line during fetal development where it can be said, “at this point, the fetus is a human being with rights”. The transition is a perfect example of a fuzzy process.
For example, get an apple. Now take a small bite out of it. Is it still an apple? Sure. It’s an apple with a bite taken out of it. Now take another one. Still an apple? Sure. But if you keep doing it, at some point everyone will agree that what’s left is no longer an ‘apple’, but perhaps an apple core, or an apple seed, or just a few bits of a former apple. But there is no one bite that determines the transition of the thing from apple to non-apple. That’s a fuzzy transition. And that’s what fetuses do.
So if you come down on the side that says a fully-formed fetus about to be born is just a chunk of meat to be discarded at the mother’s whim, but if it moves six more inches through the birth canal it’s suddenly a human being and killing it would be murder, you are making a non-scientific, non-provable value judgement. Likewise, claiming that a fertilized egg is somehow a legal human seems ridiculous on its face unless you are appealing to a magic deity in the sky. So everyone lands somewhere on that continuum, but none of them can make a claim to having a monopoly on the scientific truth.
I’m pro-choice, precisely because we can’t know through science exactly when a fetus becomes a legal human, and therefore I must defer to the rights of the mother to do as she wishes with her own body. But that doesn’t mean I think late-term abortions are hunky-dory, and I think that a woman has a certain responsibility to make the decision to abort as early as possible.
In some cases it’s not possible, and a late-term abortion is necessary. But it’s always best to abort sooner than later if an abortion is what the woman wants, and it’s her responsibility to attempt to do so. It’s just that the state should have no say in that whatsoever.
Since the 1960s the GOP has been pandering to white racists with the Southern Strategy.
Sorry to double post, but I got curious about the idea that the GOP was once the “party of blacks.” From what I can tell, in the 30s and 40s, American blacks tended to be roughly evenly split in party registration between the Democratic Party and the GOP, but going back to 1936, there never was a time when blacks were more likely to register as Republicans. So I think its fair to say the GOP has never been the party of blacks in the living memory of almost all Americans.
Pro-lifers tend to resist liberal sexual education, family planning programs, and efforts to increase contraceptive use. Abortion by itself is a problem, but they see the whole liberal ideology around easy sex without commitment or marriage as degenerate and socially maladaptive.
Maybe. tl;dr Young evangelical woman who dropped out of the movement because of such inconsistencies, especially when she noticed countries that ban abortions don’t have lower abortion rates.
Bit of a mind screw though, isn’t it? Imagine a world where murder was legal but the argument that convinced you to support the pro-murder side was the anti-murder side can’t effectively reduce murders when they get into power.
Are you a fan of Jonathan Haidt? He’s raised similar concerns, mostly for social psychology. Perhaps there needs to be a quota system. Diversity of ideas, and all that. It’s funny that excuses for this are offered that would be unacceptable if applied to other groups.
Hence the high negativity bias. A lot of conservative rhetoric revolves around the idea that some out group is taking advantage of their largess and if they don’t resist this they’re a sucker. Combine with the sensitivity to disgust and focus on sexual purity and it’s no surprise that the “cuck” pejorative took off like it did.
Surprised enough to change your general opinion about post-rational America’s Republican Party? Didn’t think so.
What do you think of Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Stone? Or Ann Coulter? Do they speak for you? Certainly they capture the sentiments of many or most Republicans. Judging by some of your misconceptions I’ll guess watching such hucksters is part of your problem.
IIRC, you’re a Canadian who became so infatuated with Milton Friedman you’ve ended with a one-dimensional understanding of economics. (Have you ever published your refutation of Braess’ Paradox? )
Serious question: Does Canada have millions of right-wingers as flatulent and xenophobic as those in the U.S.? You may need to immerse yourself in U.S. propaganda to understand how misguided the GOP has become. I hope your “surprise” at Trump’s support educates you just a little.
:eek: I suspect you’d put me “on the left” but I’ve much respect for Romney and find him far far more acceptable than ANY of the dogs in the 2016 GOP stable. Are you perhaps indulging in hyperbole?
And — sanity check time — did you know “the right” uses much viler language than “the left”? After all, Romney* is* a white one-percenter, and did mistreat a dog and bully a schoolchild. (I don’t know about the Magic underwear" :smack: ) So at least these objections were based on fact. The vile right relies on utter fictions.
HTH.
I don’t know about the last sentence… that’s a metaphor too far, I think.
Anyway, it’s a combination of relatively smart marketing on the part of the Republicans to harp on the idea that the government is taking one’s hard-earned money and giving it to lay-about minorities and foreigners, and (IMO) an abject marketing failure on the part of the Democratic party to either market their concepts better, or at the very least, offer balancing programs for the majority rank and file. They really need to do a better job of explaining that it’s not a Robin Hood program at their expense, which is how these things are generally perceived. If it was funded solely through taxes on the Warren Buffets and T. Boone Pickens’ of the world, I doubt anyone would complain, but the working class/lower-middle class/middle-class majority tend to feel that the tax burden is onerous enough, without using said tax money to enrich one group at their own perceived expense. Put simply, if they’re paying 30% of their income in taxes, they resent that, and resent it even more when tax money is seen as specifically benefiting some other group simply because they’re who they are, like say… race-based scholarships to college. If it’s some kind of equal access program like non-race based merit scholarships, it’s not nearly so resented.
Where the Democrats fail is in explaining just how spending this already resented tax money on a particular minority specifically does any good for the majority of people being taxed. The thinking is “I’m already being taxed to hell and back, and now you’re spending it on THEM?” Thus far, all I’ve ever been able to divine from ~20 years on the SDMB and elsewhere, is that you’re basically a dinosaur, intolerant, and a bigot if you disagree, and that’s the Democratic party’s approach to dealing with the majority.
There are very few efforts to actually inform the rank and file about WHY these things are good from the Democrats, and a whole lot of Republican glurge and other crap about why this stuff is bad.