CDZ Problems With The Modern GOP

[Picaro]

Hi folks! I was hoping for an intelligent, civil discussion on what I see as some major problems with the Republican party in the modern age (say, Reagan through Trump). Yes, I think Democrats have problems. No side in US politics is without hypocrisy, fault, and the like. Maybe I'll do another thread about that, but for now, this one is focused on the GOP.

See, I grew up respecting Republicans even though I was a Democrat. But I'm struggling these days to find that respect again. IMO, here are those major problems.

Never have liked them as a Party; some of their candidates are just a much better choice than what Democrats have been running since the 1980's. Ann Richards is responsible for turning most of Texas red, for instance, since she was more interested in her own ego and pandering to her drinking buddies in Austin than real politics, and tossed Bob Bullock and other real yellow dog liberals under the bus just as the national Party did in the early '80's

1. Doctrinal Purity:

I'm worried by the trend towards policing Republicans for being ideologically impure. The GOP used to be a big tent party, but these days, I see too many RINO accusations. It seems like any Republican who deviates from core principals like low taxes or pro-life can be considered a traitor to the cause. I think this is why the GOP has been unable to change and adapt, such as reaching out to Hispanics.

The GOP raises taxes all the time, and 'pro-life' isn't a doctrine, it's basic humanity; any culture that tolerates murdering babies is on a serious decline into oblivion.

2. Rejection Of Research And Science:

I get that facts can be slippery and that studies, stats, etc. can be skewed. But there seems to be a growing trend in the Republican Party to outright reject research and science. Global warming is not a question, yet many Republicans deny it. Evolution and the Big Bang are valid theories that work, but Republicans often reject both. I just don't get it, and I cannot see how the GOP can effectively lead by demonizing science.

Hyperbolic falsehoods; science isn't being denied, it's being questioned by skeptics. Evolution is not science, it's mere speculation, and one need only be familiar with empirical methodology to see there is no physical proof of it at this point. It's much more of a cult for Xian bashers than science, and has been since Darwin published his theories of adaptation.

3. Fiscal irresponsibility:

Back when I was young, I held two idea: Democrats spend like crazy, and Republicans tighten budgets. But in recent years, I've seen the opposite. Republicans sometimes lower taxes, but they rarely decrease spending. In fact, the best changes to our national debt and deficits have come under Democratic presidents. These days, I fully expect Republicans to spend like crazy.

Paleo-liberals were more fiscally responsible than the GOP overall, in that they at least required increased revenues to pay for the increases, while Republicans rarely did for their policies; they keep trying to tax those with the least to tax while jacking up subsidies and corporate welfare for their major donors, yes. But now the Democrats have joined them, and they are all 'neo-liberals' now, and have gutted the country's tax base as well, so deficits are the new norm now for both Parties. They get along great with commies these days, being all 'globalist' and whatnot.

4. Valuing Winning Over Morality:

Whether you agree with Trump's policies or not, one thing is factually accurate: Trump is not a good person. He's not evil, but he bragged about sexual assault and lies very often. Even his "straight talk" is suspect and bullying. Compare him to Reagan, and you'll see what I mean. But not only did he win the GOP nomination, Republicans continue to support him no matter what he does. It seems to me that The Republican Party values winning elections over being a good person.

Gibberish and spin. Not worth answering seriously.

Do you agree that these problems exist? As usual, respect will be returned. Due to this forum's rules, disrespect will simply be ignored.

Okay. This is just another Trump bashing troll post, anyway, and rhetorical 'questions' you aren't actually interested in, so we don't mind.

 

[jwoodie]

Anyone who goes into a thread about the Republican Party and wants to discuss the Democratic Party is derailing that thread. Which I thought was not permitted in this this clean zone, but that's beyond my pay grade.

See, here's the thing: I do not want to discuss global warming. That's an example, not a subject. But hey, free country and all that. Avoid the main topic if you can't handle it.

After its string of electoral successes, "what's wrong with the GOP" is somewhat of an oxymorom. As a result, your thread is about as relevant as one asking what's wrong with the New England Patriots.

But then you weren't asking a sincere question in the first place, were you?

 

[Iceweasel]

Anyone who goes into a thread about the Republican Party and wants to discuss the Democratic Party is derailing that thread. Which I thought was not permitted in this this clean zone, but that's beyond my pay grade.

See, here's the thing: I do not want to discuss global warming. That's an example, not a subject. But hey, free country and all that. Avoid the main topic if you can't handle it.

After its string of electoral successes, "what's wrong with the GOP" is somewhat of an oxymorom. As a result, your thread is about as relevant as one asking what's wrong with the New England Patriots.

But then you weren't asking a sincere question in the first place, were you?

But the Russians hacked the Super Bowl.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hi folks! I was hoping for an intelligent, civil discussion on what I see as some major problems with the Republican party in the modern age (say, Reagan through Trump). Yes, I think Democrats have problems. No side in US politics is without hypocrisy, fault, and the like. Maybe I'll do another thread about that, but for now, this one is focused on the GOP.

See, I grew up respecting Republicans even though I was a Democrat. But I'm struggling these days to find that respect again. IMO, here are those major problems.

1. Doctrinal Purity: I'm worried by the trend towards policing Republicans for being ideologically impure. The GOP used to be a big tent party, but these days, I see too many RINO accusations. It seems like any Republican who deviates from core principals like low taxes or pro-life can be considered a traitor to the cause. I think this is why the GOP has been unable to change and adapt, such as reaching out to Hispanics.

2. Rejection Of Research And Science: I get that facts can be slippery and that studies, stats, etc. can be skewed. But there seems to be a growing trend in the Republican Party to outright reject research and science. Global warming is not a question, yet many Republicans deny it. Evolution and the Big Bang are valid theories that work, but Republicans often reject both. I just don't get it, and I cannot see how the GOP can effectively lead by demonizing science.

3. Fiscal irresponsibility: Back when I was young, I held two idea: Democrats spend like crazy, and Republicans tighten budgets. But in recent years, I've seen the opposite. Republicans sometimes lower taxes, but they rarely decrease spending. In fact, the best changes to our national debt and deficits have come under Democratic presidents. These days, I fully expect Republicans to spend like crazy.

4. Valuing Winning Over Morality: Whether you agree with Trump's policies or not, one thing is factually accurate: Trump is not a good person. He's not evil, but he bragged about sexual assault and lies very often. Even his "straight talk" is suspect and bullying. Compare him to Reagan, and you'll see what I mean. But not only did he win the GOP nomination, Republicans continue to support him no matter what he does. It seems to me that The Republican Party values winning elections over being a good person.

Do you agree that these problems exist? As usual, respect will be returned. Due to this forum's rules, disrespect will simply be ignored.

In fact, the best changes to our national debt and deficits have come under Democratic presidents.

Under Obama, the national debt went from $10.6 trillion to $19.9 trillion.

Is that the best change?

The national debt under Obama increased by around 60% according to your numbers. The national debut under Reagan increased by 190%. Plus, the deficit under Obama increased but by it's smallest rate in years.

The national debt under Obama increased by around 60% according to your numbers

No, Obama's increase of $9.3 trillion is about 88%.

The national debut under Reagan increased by 190%.

Reagan's increase of $1.86 trillion won the Cold War. Freed hundreds of millions of people.
Made the world a safer place.

How much safer are we after Obama's addition of 5 times as much?

Plus, the deficit under Obama increased but by it's smallest rate in years.

He added, on average, over $1 trillion per year to the debt, you sure that's something to brag about?

My apologies for doing my math wrong re: 60% vs 88%. I divided by the wrong number. I'm still seeing 68% as Obama's number, but I'll run with yours to avoid being sidetracked.

I see how you 1) ignored how Reagan's 190% is over twice as much as Obama's 88%, and 2) how you gave Reagan a pass for his massive increase. If you're giving out passes, then Obama deserves one. That's because he inherited the Great Recession from the housing bubble, decreasing tax revenues.

From what I can find online:
- Obama: 88% increase
- Bush: 101% increase
- Clinton: 32% increase
- Bush: 54% increase
- Reagan: 190% increase
- Carter: 43% increase

I'm still seeing 68% as Obama's number, but I'll run with yours to avoid being sidetracked.

Show me your work and I'll show you your error.

From what I can find online:
- Obama: 88% increase

Looks just like my number.

I see how you 1) ignored how Reagan's 190% is over twice as much as Obama's 88%

I see how you ignored Obama's $9.3 trillion was 5 times Reagan's $1.86 trillion.

Do you feel Bush's $4.9 trillion increase ($5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion.......86%)
is equivalent to, or worse than Obama's $9.3 trillion......88% increase?

how you gave Reagan a pass for his massive increase.

Reagan's increase beat the USSR and made the world safer.
Did Obama's increase make the world safer?

 

[2aguy]

Hi folks! I was hoping for an intelligent, civil discussion on what I see as some major problems with the Republican party in the modern age (say, Reagan through Trump). Yes, I think Democrats have problems. No side in US politics is without hypocrisy, fault, and the like. Maybe I'll do another thread about that, but for now, this one is focused on the GOP.

See, I grew up respecting Republicans even though I was a Democrat. But I'm struggling these days to find that respect again. IMO, here are those major problems.

1. Doctrinal Purity: I'm worried by the trend towards policing Republicans for being ideologically impure. The GOP used to be a big tent party, but these days, I see too many RINO accusations. It seems like any Republican who deviates from core principals like low taxes or pro-life can be considered a traitor to the cause. I think this is why the GOP has been unable to change and adapt, such as reaching out to Hispanics.

2. Rejection Of Research And Science: I get that facts can be slippery and that studies, stats, etc. can be skewed. But there seems to be a growing trend in the Republican Party to outright reject research and science. Global warming is not a question, yet many Republicans deny it. Evolution and the Big Bang are valid theories that work, but Republicans often reject both. I just don't get it, and I cannot see how the GOP can effectively lead by demonizing science.

3. Fiscal irresponsibility: Back when I was young, I held two idea: Democrats spend like crazy, and Republicans tighten budgets. But in recent years, I've seen the opposite. Republicans sometimes lower taxes, but they rarely decrease spending. In fact, the best changes to our national debt and deficits have come under Democratic presidents. These days, I fully expect Republicans to spend like crazy.

4. Valuing Winning Over Morality: Whether you agree with Trump's policies or not, one thing is factually accurate: Trump is not a good person. He's not evil, but he bragged about sexual assault and lies very often. Even his "straight talk" is suspect and bullying. Compare him to Reagan, and you'll see what I mean. But not only did he win the GOP nomination, Republicans continue to support him no matter what he does. It seems to me that The Republican Party values winning elections over being a good person.

Do you agree that these problems exist? As usual, respect will be returned. Due to this forum's rules, disrespect will simply be ignored.

Global warming is a question...especially when you politicize the science....and the only ones limiting scientific investigation is the left, as they accuse anyone who is skeptical of faulty computer models on climate change as simply paid hacks.......while the left wing global warmers make millions pushing their ideas..

....the best debt and deficit reduction come from Republicans controlling congress and the democrat President having to go along with it...otherwise they spend us into 20 trillion dollars of debt.....

And of the two...hilary was actually a criminal, married to a rapist, who she protected.....they put winning above everything...

Please......the two parties are not close to being what you are trying to make out...

 

[bt404]

Hi folks! I was hoping for an intelligent, civil discussion on what I see as some major problems with the Republican party in the modern age (say, Reagan through Trump). Yes, I think Democrats have problems. No side in US politics is without hypocrisy, fault, and the like. Maybe I'll do another thread about that, but for now, this one is focused on the GOP.

See, I grew up respecting Republicans even though I was a Democrat. But I'm struggling these days to find that respect again. IMO, here are those major problems.

Never have liked them as a Party; some of their candidates are just a much better choice than what Democrats have been running since the 1980's. Ann Richards is responsible for turning most of Texas red, for instance, since she was more interested in her own ego and pandering to her drinking buddies in Austin than real politics, and tossed Bob Bullock and other real yellow dog liberals under the bus just as the national Party did in the early '80's

1. Doctrinal Purity:

I'm worried by the trend towards policing Republicans for being ideologically impure. The GOP used to be a big tent party, but these days, I see too many RINO accusations. It seems like any Republican who deviates from core principals like low taxes or pro-life can be considered a traitor to the cause. I think this is why the GOP has been unable to change and adapt, such as reaching out to Hispanics.

The GOP raises taxes all the time, and 'pro-life' isn't a doctrine, it's basic humanity; any culture that tolerates murdering babies is on a serious decline into oblivion.

2. Rejection Of Research And Science:

I get that facts can be slippery and that studies, stats, etc. can be skewed. But there seems to be a growing trend in the Republican Party to outright reject research and science. Global warming is not a question, yet many Republicans deny it. Evolution and the Big Bang are valid theories that work, but Republicans often reject both. I just don't get it, and I cannot see how the GOP can effectively lead by demonizing science.

Hyperbolic falsehoods; science isn't being denied, it's being questioned by skeptics. Evolution is not science, it's mere speculation, and one need only be familiar with empirical methodology to see there is no physical proof of it at this point. It's much more of a cult for Xian bashers than science, and has been since Darwin published his theories of adaptation.

3. Fiscal irresponsibility:

Back when I was young, I held two idea: Democrats spend like crazy, and Republicans tighten budgets. But in recent years, I've seen the opposite. Republicans sometimes lower taxes, but they rarely decrease spending. In fact, the best changes to our national debt and deficits have come under Democratic presidents. These days, I fully expect Republicans to spend like crazy.

Paleo-liberals were more fiscally responsible than the GOP overall, in that they at least required increased revenues to pay for the increases, while Republicans rarely did for their policies; they keep trying to tax those with the least to tax while jacking up subsidies and corporate welfare for their major donors, yes. But now the Democrats have joined them, and they are all 'neo-liberals' now, and have gutted the country's tax base as well, so deficits are the new norm now for both Parties. They get along great with commies these days, being all 'globalist' and whatnot.

4. Valuing Winning Over Morality:

Whether you agree with Trump's policies or not, one thing is factually accurate: Trump is not a good person. He's not evil, but he bragged about sexual assault and lies very often. Even his "straight talk" is suspect and bullying. Compare him to Reagan, and you'll see what I mean. But not only did he win the GOP nomination, Republicans continue to support him no matter what he does. It seems to me that The Republican Party values winning elections over being a good person.

Gibberish and spin. Not worth answering seriously.

Do you agree that these problems exist? As usual, respect will be returned. Due to this forum's rules, disrespect will simply be ignored.

Okay. This is just another Trump bashing troll post, anyway, and rhetorical 'questions' you aren't actually interested in, so we don't mind.

Hyperbolic falsehoods; science isn't being denied, it's being questioned by skeptics. Evolution is not science, it's mere speculation, and one need only be familiar with empirical methodology to see there is no physical proof of it at this point. It's much more of a cult for Xian bashers than science, and has been since Darwin published his theories of adaptation.

No it's being questioned by, mostly, political pundit, lobbyists, and businessmen whom never actually studied science, or care to look at the weight of evidence in regards to climate change. Did you really just say "evolution is not science, it's mere speculation"? There's plenty of empirical and physical proof. Don't have the time to put it in all detail here. So what is science to you, then? Just things that you want to hear? Biblical textures that say the earth is 5000 years old? Seriously, I'm curious to know. By your logic, gravity is also just speculation. As is meteorology and chemistry for that matter.

This is just another Trump bashing troll post, anyway, and rhetorical 'questions' you aren't actually interested in, so we don't mind.

No it is not. The OP raised legitimate questions that are worth debating. Everyone on this board talks about debating, not just hurling out insults like "liberals" do, yet here is a debate, and you all tell the OP to pipe down and shut up....

 

[Picaro]

No it's being questioned by, mostly, political pundit, lobbyists, and businessmen whom never actually studied science, or care to look at the weight of evidence in regards to climate change.

According to you, based on nothing but your opinion and wishful thinking; I don't follow cults, left or right wing, so you'll just have to play with the other cultists. there is little but projection and of course academic grantsmanship, people who will pay for having their biases confirmed and theories in search of facts that only fit their preconceived opinions.

Did you really just say "evolution is not science, it's mere speculation"? There's plenty of empirical and physical proof. Don't have the time to put it in all detail here.

Yes, I did say that, and have said many times before; I'm still waiting on all this 'evidence' that is claimed to prove evolution is anything but a speculation.

So what is science to you, then?

Oh, seeing actual facts that are real proof, uncomfortable things like that ...

Just things that you want to hear? Biblical textures that say the earth is 5000 years old?

Ah, so now you show your own ignorant bias here yet gain, assuming only Xians would dare disagree with your cult's wish list of 'sciencey stuff'. ... Of Course that's been apparent all along, since your OP, actually.

Seriously, I'm curious to know.

No, you're not serious, you're just peddling junk and pretending you know what you're talking about and using your ignorance to take political shots at other people, period. Try to do genuine research on topics instead of just regurgitating fever swamp nonsense you like hearing if you were actually serious about discussing anything; as it is here you're not the least interested in that.

By your logic, gravity is also just speculation. As is meteorology and chemistry for that matter.

Throwing in the kitchen sink here, obviously. Sorry to break it to you but you're the hero with all the logical fallacies littering up the joint. You know squat about science, so just quit pretending you do.

This is just another Trump bashing troll post, anyway, and rhetorical 'questions' you aren't actually interested in, so we don't mind.

No it is not. The OP raised legitimate questions that are worth debating. Everyone on this board talks about debating, not just hurling out insults like "liberals" do, yet here is a debate, and you all tell the OP to pipe down and shut up....

No, the OP was just another attempt at being clever, by an astro-turfer who just isn't as clever as he/she/it/mutant thinks he/she/it/mutant is. You don't even know what real debating is in the first place.

 

[bt404]

No it's being questioned by, mostly, political pundit, lobbyists, and businessmen whom never actually studied science, or care to look at the weight of evidence in regards to climate change.

According to you, based on nothing but your opinion and wishful thinking; I don't follow cults, left or right wing, so you'll just have to play with the other cultists. there is little but projection and of course academic grantsmanship, people who will pay for having their biases confirmed and theories in search of facts that only fit their preconceived opinions.

Did you really just say "evolution is not science, it's mere speculation"? There's plenty of empirical and physical proof. Don't have the time to put it in all detail here.

Yes, I did say that, and have said many times before; I'm still waiting on all this 'evidence' that is claimed to prove evolution is anything but a speculation.

So what is science to you, then?

Oh, seeing actual facts that are real proof, uncomfortable things like that ...

Just things that you want to hear? Biblical textures that say the earth is 5000 years old?

Ah, so now you show your own ignorant bias here yet gain, assuming only Xians would dare disagree with your cult's wish list of 'sciencey stuff'. ... Of Course that's been apparent all along, since your OP, actually.

Seriously, I'm curious to know.

No, you're not serious, you're just peddling junk and pretending you know what you're talking about and using your ignorance to take political shots at other people, period. Try to do genuine research on topics instead of just regurgitating fever swamp nonsense you like hearing if you were actually serious about discussing anything; as it is here you're not the least interested in that.

By your logic, gravity is also just speculation. As is meteorology and chemistry for that matter.

Throwing in the kitchen sink here, obviously. Sorry to break it to you but you're the hero with all the logical fallacies littering up the joint. You know squat about science, so just quit pretending you do.

This is just another Trump bashing troll post, anyway, and rhetorical 'questions' you aren't actually interested in, so we don't mind.

No it is not. The OP raised legitimate questions that are worth debating. Everyone on this board talks about debating, not just hurling out insults like "liberals" do, yet here is a debate, and you all tell the OP to pipe down and shut up....

No, the OP was just another attempt at being clever, by an astro-turfer who just isn't as clever as he/she/it/mutant thinks he/she/it/mutant is. You don't even know what real debating is in the first place.

Unsurprisingly, you did not address a single point I made and, instead, reverted to personal attacks. Let's go down the line shall we?

According to you, based on nothing but your opinion and wishful thinking; I don't follow cults, left or right wing, so you'll just have to play with the other cultists. there is little but projection and of course academic grantsmanship, people who will pay for having their biases confirmed and theories in search of facts that only fit their preconceived opinions.

No it's being questioned by, mostly, political pundit, lobbyists, and businessmen whom never actually studied science, or care to look at the weight of evidence in regards to climate change.

According to you, based on nothing but your opinion and wishful thinking; I don't follow cults, left or right wing, so you'll just have to play with the other cultists. there is little but projection and of course academic grantsmanship, people who will pay for having their biases confirmed and theories in search of facts that only fit their preconceived opinions.

Did you really just say "evolution is not science, it's mere speculation"? There's plenty of empirical and physical proof. Don't have the time to put it in all detail here.

Yes, I did say that, and have said many times before; I'm still waiting on all this 'evidence' that is claimed to prove evolution is anything but a speculation.

So what is science to you, then?

Oh, seeing actual facts that are real proof, uncomfortable things like that ...

Just things that you want to hear? Biblical textures that say the earth is 5000 years old?

Ah, so now you show your own ignorant bias here yet gain, assuming only Xians would dare disagree with your cult's wish list of 'sciencey stuff'. ... Of Course that's been apparent all along, since your OP, actually.

Seriously, I'm curious to know.

No, you're not serious, you're just peddling junk and pretending you know what you're talking about and using your ignorance to take political shots at other people, period. Try to do genuine research on topics instead of just regurgitating fever swamp nonsense you like hearing if you were actually serious about discussing anything; as it is here you're not the least interested in that.

By your logic, gravity is also just speculation. As is meteorology and chemistry for that matter.

Throwing in the kitchen sink here, obviously. Sorry to break it to you but you're the hero with all the logical fallacies littering up the joint. You know squat about science, so just quit pretending you do.

This is just another Trump bashing troll post, anyway, and rhetorical 'questions' you aren't actually interested in, so we don't mind.

No it is not. The OP raised legitimate questions that are worth debating. Everyone on this board talks about debating, not just hurling out insults like "liberals" do, yet here is a debate, and you all tell the OP to pipe down and shut up....

No, the OP was just another attempt at being clever, by an astro-turfer who just isn't as clever as he/she/it/mutant thinks he/she/it/mutant is. You don't even know what real debating is in the first place.

You did not address a single point I made and, instead, reverted to personal attacks.

According to you, based on nothing but your opinion and wishful thinking; I don't follow cults, left or right wing, so you'll just have to play with the other cultists. there is little but projection and of course academic grantsmanship, people who will pay for having their biases confirmed and theories in search of facts that only fit their preconceived opinions.

It's not wishful thinking at all. Take a look at the link I put out there. Most scientists confirm that human beings are indeed playing a significant role in climate change. And the fact that those who do deny climate change tend to come from business backgrounds shouldn't surprise anyone. Take a look at the largest most powerful skeptic lobbying groups. They're mainly supported by Exxon Mobil and the Koch bros. Granted, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson is at least willing to accept that there is SOME validity to the scientific consensus (a small step but not a large enough one in my opinion).

No, you're not serious, you're just peddling junk and pretending you know what you're talking about and using your ignorance to take political shots at other people, period. Try to do genuine research on topics instead of just regurgitating fever swamp nonsense you like hearing if you were actually serious about discussing anything; as it is here you're not the least interested in that.

Nothing of actual substance here. Just more white noise ad hominem.

Yes, I did say that, and have said many times before; I'm still waiting on all this 'evidence' that is claimed to prove evolution is anything but a speculation.

Click on the link, the thing that's underlined. A basic rundown of evidence. I'd recommend you read Darwin's "Origin of Species" and other books like Dawkins "Selfish Gene" for more...

And your forthcoming response about how all the links are just "biased groups" won't work here. Scientists tend, though not ALWAYS, but in a vast majority of cases, provide evidence based on empiricism, not profit. So there's no reason we should assume that 97 percent of scientists are just making their academic papers and observations up, unless you happen to believe the overwhelming percentage of scientists whom verify the theory of gravity is also making that up. All in all, scientists are not businessmen. Their job is to attempt to construct some notion of truth about our universe, usually through empirical observation and mathematics.

Oh, seeing actual facts that are real proof, uncomfortable things like that ...

Right...so why don't you debate the facts I presented to you (or rather, linked, to you)?

Ah, so now you show your own ignorant bias here yet gain, assuming only Xians would dare disagree with your cult's wish list of 'sciencey stuff'. ... Of Course that's been apparent all along, since your OP, actually.

No bias. People who believes that earth was 5000 years old are entirely Christian (usually right-wing too). It's not bias to say that the earth ISN'T 5000 years old. It's simply that the evidence is OVERWHELMING against that notion.

 

[Correll]

1) Sorry, but it looks like you're blaming others for your party's failure. Hispanics are Americans, too. Just because they're not white doesn't mean you can ignore them under the guide of "race baiting".

2) "Reeks of partisan bias"? Maybe. That's why I wanted a discussion and civil debate on it. I could very well be wrong. But if you don't want to participate, then just don't post.

3) AFAIK, Social Security would be just fine if Congress didn't raid it to patch budget holes. And it's hard to take "panic mongering" about the budget seriously when they add to the problem with spending increases and tax cuts.

And I'm not asking anyone to touch a third rail or grenade for me. I asked for a debate. Again, if you cannot handle that, I respectfully suggest you stay quiet. But then again, this is a public forum — you are free to do what you want.

4) Trump: "I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” That's bragging about sexual assault. Case closed. But if you'd like to discount that point, there's the larger and more important one of Trump's behavior being ignored because he won.

1. The fact that you can POST "they let you do it" while thinking that you are supporting an accusation of sexual assault shows you to be unable to see or hear even what your are saying, though your partisan filters.

2. The GOP has not ignored Hispanics. We are the victims are your sides, successful race baiting. It is poor form to inflict a wound and then blame the entity you injured for their hurt.

3. Social security and other entitlement spending are not fine. A program that counts on generations of politicians not touching a big pile of money with no oversight is a fatally flawed program.

4. And yes you are, Asking Republicans to take the hit for fiscal responsibility.

1) Is there are reason you cannot read Trump's quote when he says, "I just start kissing them"? That's sexual assault. Seriously, I get that you want to defend Trump no matter what, but you're not paying attention to actual words. Partisan filters? Pot, kettle, black.

2) Can you provide examples of this so-called race-baiting? And are you saying the modern GOP is so feckless that they cannot defeat some liberals and successfully pull in Hispanic voters in any significant degree? Or will your explanation baselessly reference Soros, HRC, socialism, and the mainstream media?

3) LOL, so you're saying the reason SocSec is bad is because politicians are corrupt? Geez, you sound like a liberal blaming guns for what people do with them. Same damn logic.

4) As I said, I grew up thinking Dems were poor with money and Reps were fiscally responsible. In the past 20 years, I've seen Reps grow irresponsible, especially by making tax cuts without spending cuts. So no, I'm not asking Reps to take a hit for anything because I already said the Dems were irresponsible.

1. YOu did not address my point about consent, other than to restate your accusation. That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
.

2.A. YOur request for examples of race baiting cannot be serious. Stop playing games.

2b. Your attempt to turn this on the GOP for failing to defeat the Race Baiting of the Left is dismissed.

3. I said what I said. Do you care to address it?

4. Every time we republicans make any attempt to rein in spending, we are demagogued to DEATH, by you lefties. You want fiscal responsibility, you are welcome to take the lead.

 

[Correll]

The Republicans have dived into a sea of corporatism and globalism. I think that's their biggest problem.
AGW is the problem. Not natural earth evolution. Number 2 is just malarkey
Number 4 is a duopoly problem. Both sides are so partisan now it makes me sick to my stomach. Republicans deny like crazy and the dems have actually turned to violence and destruction. Its sad.

Corporatism I see, but how globalism? I see them being increasingly isolationist.

Sorry, but I've read of GOP folks denying global warming at all (see Limbaugh's claims the earth is cooling, not warming) and that evolution is a Satanic lie. I don't know how you can call #2 malarkey with such evidence.

As for duopoly, I don't see that as a duopoly problem. Better put, I agree that there's a duopoly on US politics, but I don't see how Republican denials or accusations that Dems are violent applies to my proposition that Reps are more concerned with winning than morality.

Sorry, but I've read of GOP folks denying global warming at all

And then you have Dems whining about GMOs, vaccines and nuclear energy.

I agree that Dems and libs need to shut up about GMOs, vaccines, and nuclear power. But that's not germane to the thread, and it does not validate denying global warming.

You claimed that the GOP there is a trend "within the GOP" to reject "science".

THat makes any science rejection on the part of the Dems relevant as it addresses the "within gop" point.

ME: Let's talk about problems with the Republican Party.
YOU: Okay, here's what's wrong with the Democratic Party.

I guess what you're trying to say is that my claim of the GOP rejecting science is fine because the Democrats do that as well?

Let me make the question more clear: Do you think the modern Republican Party has a problem with rejecting science and research? After all, I could very well be incorrect. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that since you appear to be conservative.

No, I do not think that the GOP has a problem rejecting science and research.

 

[Correll]

Sorry, but I've read of GOP folks denying global warming at all

And then you have Dems whining about GMOs, vaccines and nuclear energy.

I agree that Dems and libs need to shut up about GMOs, vaccines, and nuclear power. But that's not germane to the thread, and it does not validate denying global warming.

You claimed that the GOP there is a trend "within the GOP" to reject "science".

THat makes any science rejection on the part of the Dems relevant as it addresses the "within gop" point.

He/she wants to dictate the answers to the loaded questions. What a joke.

LIke many liberals, he is convinced that his opin

Corporatism I see, but how globalism? I see them being increasingly isolationist.

Sorry, but I've read of GOP folks denying global warming at all (see Limbaugh's claims the earth is cooling, not warming) and that evolution is a Satanic lie. I don't know how you can call #2 malarkey with such evidence.

As for duopoly, I don't see that as a duopoly problem. Better put, I agree that there's a duopoly on US politics, but I don't see how Republican denials or accusations that Dems are violent applies to my proposition that Reps are more concerned with winning than morality.

Sorry, but I've read of GOP folks denying global warming at all

And then you have Dems whining about GMOs, vaccines and nuclear energy.

I agree that Dems and libs need to shut up about GMOs, vaccines, and nuclear power. But that's not germane to the thread, and it does not validate denying global warming.

But that's not germane to the thread

How is scientific idiocy on the Dem side not germane to a discussion about scientific idiocy?

and it does not validate denying global warming.

If Dems thought global warming was so dangerous, they should support nuclear. No CO2, right?

Anyone who wants to discuss Global Warming but doesn't want to discuss nuclear power is not being serious.

Anyone who goes into a thread about the Republican Party and wants to discuss the Democratic Party is derailing that thread. Which I thought was not permitted in this this clean zone, but that's beyond my pay grade.

See, here's the thing: I do not want to discuss global warming. That's an example, not a subject. But hey, free country and all that. Avoid the main topic if you can't handle it.

Do, you have a better example then?

 

[Iceweasel]

Hi folks! I was hoping for an intelligent, civil discussion on what I see as some major problems with the Republican party in the modern age (say, Reagan through Trump). Yes, I think Democrats have problems. No side in US politics is without hypocrisy, fault, and the like. Maybe I'll do another thread about that, but for now, this one is focused on the GOP.

See, I grew up respecting Republicans even though I was a Democrat. But I'm struggling these days to find that respect again. IMO, here are those major problems.

Never have liked them as a Party; some of their candidates are just a much better choice than what Democrats have been running since the 1980's. Ann Richards is responsible for turning most of Texas red, for instance, since she was more interested in her own ego and pandering to her drinking buddies in Austin than real politics, and tossed Bob Bullock and other real yellow dog liberals under the bus just as the national Party did in the early '80's

1. Doctrinal Purity:

I'm worried by the trend towards policing Republicans for being ideologically impure. The GOP used to be a big tent party, but these days, I see too many RINO accusations. It seems like any Republican who deviates from core principals like low taxes or pro-life can be considered a traitor to the cause. I think this is why the GOP has been unable to change and adapt, such as reaching out to Hispanics.

The GOP raises taxes all the time, and 'pro-life' isn't a doctrine, it's basic humanity; any culture that tolerates murdering babies is on a serious decline into oblivion.

2. Rejection Of Research And Science:

I get that facts can be slippery and that studies, stats, etc. can be skewed. But there seems to be a growing trend in the Republican Party to outright reject research and science. Global warming is not a question, yet many Republicans deny it. Evolution and the Big Bang are valid theories that work, but Republicans often reject both. I just don't get it, and I cannot see how the GOP can effectively lead by demonizing science.

Hyperbolic falsehoods; science isn't being denied, it's being questioned by skeptics. Evolution is not science, it's mere speculation, and one need only be familiar with empirical methodology to see there is no physical proof of it at this point. It's much more of a cult for Xian bashers than science, and has been since Darwin published his theories of adaptation.

3. Fiscal irresponsibility:

Back when I was young, I held two idea: Democrats spend like crazy, and Republicans tighten budgets. But in recent years, I've seen the opposite. Republicans sometimes lower taxes, but they rarely decrease spending. In fact, the best changes to our national debt and deficits have come under Democratic presidents. These days, I fully expect Republicans to spend like crazy.

Paleo-liberals were more fiscally responsible than the GOP overall, in that they at least required increased revenues to pay for the increases, while Republicans rarely did for their policies; they keep trying to tax those with the least to tax while jacking up subsidies and corporate welfare for their major donors, yes. But now the Democrats have joined them, and they are all 'neo-liberals' now, and have gutted the country's tax base as well, so deficits are the new norm now for both Parties. They get along great with commies these days, being all 'globalist' and whatnot.

4. Valuing Winning Over Morality:

Whether you agree with Trump's policies or not, one thing is factually accurate: Trump is not a good person. He's not evil, but he bragged about sexual assault and lies very often. Even his "straight talk" is suspect and bullying. Compare him to Reagan, and you'll see what I mean. But not only did he win the GOP nomination, Republicans continue to support him no matter what he does. It seems to me that The Republican Party values winning elections over being a good person.

Gibberish and spin. Not worth answering seriously.

Do you agree that these problems exist? As usual, respect will be returned. Due to this forum's rules, disrespect will simply be ignored.

Okay. This is just another Trump bashing troll post, anyway, and rhetorical 'questions' you aren't actually interested in, so we don't mind.

Hyperbolic falsehoods; science isn't being denied, it's being questioned by skeptics. Evolution is not science, it's mere speculation, and one need only be familiar with empirical methodology to see there is no physical proof of it at this point. It's much more of a cult for Xian bashers than science, and has been since Darwin published his theories of adaptation.

No it's being questioned by, mostly, political pundit, lobbyists, and businessmen whom never actually studied science, or care to look at the weight of evidence in regards to climate change. Did you really just say "evolution is not science, it's mere speculation"? There's plenty of empirical and physical proof. Don't have the time to put it in all detail here. So what is science to you, then? Just things that you want to hear? Biblical textures that say the earth is 5000 years old? Seriously, I'm curious to know. By your logic, gravity is also just speculation. As is meteorology and chemistry for that matter.

No, most scientists do not study climate and "evidence" has been faked to fit the narrative, backed up by arrogance, ridicule and scorn. Consensus isn't science. Accurate temperature readings did not exist until recently so a half percent rise over a hundred years means nothing.

This is just another Trump bashing troll post, anyway, and rhetorical 'questions' you aren't actually interested in, so we don't mind.

No it is not. The OP raised legitimate questions that are worth debating. Everyone on this board talks about debating, not just hurling out insults like "liberals" do, yet here is a debate, and you all tell the OP to pipe down and shut up....

No, the OP was insulting and condescending. No small surprise you couldn't see it.

 

[bt404]

No, most scientists do not study climate and "evidence" has been faked to fit the narrative, backed up by arrogance, ridicule and scorn. Consensus isn't science. Accurate temperature readings did not exist until recently so a half percent rise over a hundred years means nothing.

The RATE of temperature rising is increasing. (see link) If you dispute the actual evidence, then debate the evidence instead of resorting to the whole "fake evidence" argument.
And if you do think it's fake, where is your evidence? To accuse thousands and thousands of scientists from all around the world to just "make up" evidence out of absolute thin air to fit some profit-narrative is a HUGE claim, one that must be backed up. So what is your evidence for this? The weight of evidence is on my side right now but I'm very much open to seeing what you can present.

No, the OP was insulting and condescending. No small surprise you couldn't see it.

It seems to me he's genuinely curious, not condescending. If you all get that offended by him asking questions that even remotely threaten your world view, then you're just as sensitive and trigger-warning prone as the "snowflake liberals". Can you explain which parts are condescending?

 

[Iceweasel]

No, most scientists do not study climate and "evidence" has been faked to fit the narrative, backed up by arrogance, ridicule and scorn. Consensus isn't science. Accurate temperature readings did not exist until recently so a half percent rise over a hundred years means nothing.

The RATE of temperature rising is increasing. (see link) If you dispute the actual evidence, then debate the evidence instead of resorting to the whole "fake evidence" argument.
And if you do think it's fake, where is your evidence? To accuse thousands and thousands of scientists from all around the world to just "make up" evidence out of absolute thin air to fit some profit-narrative is a HUGE claim, one that must be backed up. So what is your evidence for this? The weight of evidence is on my side right now but I'm very much open to seeing what you can present.

No, the OP was insulting and condescending. No small surprise you couldn't see it.

No I really can't. Can you explain which parts are condescending?

Yes, "evidence" has been fabricated. We haven't had a way to accurately measure temperature for long. Sure, climate changes but the assertion is man did it. How much would it have changed if man had not existed? You can't say.

I explained what was condescending, you can't even read.

 

[bt404]

Yes, "evidence" has been fabricated. We haven't had a way to accurately measure temperature for long. Sure, climate changes but the assertion is man did it

Ok but where's your evidence for this? Just because "we haven't had a way to accurately measure temperature for long"? There are other ways to measure temperature you know...For example, scientists can use temperature proxies taking measurements of responses to past temperature change that are preserved in natural archives such as ice, rocks and fossils. There are also ways to measure chemical differences in snow formed at diff temperatures.

Liberals or Conservative, I don't understand why you people are so conspiratorial with this thing...regardless of whether it's worse or less worse than we think, why would we want take any chance at all? We don't have another earth to go to in which this if-experiment can be conducted...

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes, "evidence" has been fabricated. We haven't had a way to accurately measure temperature for long. Sure, climate changes but the assertion is man did it

Ok but where's your evidence for this? Just because "we haven't had a way to accurately measure temperature for long"? There are other ways to measure temperature you know...For example, scientists can use temperature proxies taking measurements of responses to past temperature change that are preserved in natural archives such as ice, rocks and fossils. There are also ways to measure chemical differences in snow formed at diff temperatures.

Liberals or Conservative, I don't understand why you people are so conspiratorial with this thing...regardless of whether it's worse or less worse than we think, why would we want take any chance at all? We don't have another earth to go to in which this if-experiment can be conducted...

Temperature proxies? Snow chemicals withing degrees? Yeah, right. My challenge was simple, what would the climate be without man?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, most scientists do not study climate and "evidence" has been faked to fit the narrative, backed up by arrogance, ridicule and scorn. Consensus isn't science. Accurate temperature readings did not exist until recently so a half percent rise over a hundred years means nothing.

The RATE of temperature rising is increasing. (see link) If you dispute the actual evidence, then debate the evidence instead of resorting to the whole "fake evidence" argument.
And if you do think it's fake, where is your evidence? To accuse thousands and thousands of scientists from all around the world to just "make up" evidence out of absolute thin air to fit some profit-narrative is a HUGE claim, one that must be backed up. So what is your evidence for this? The weight of evidence is on my side right now but I'm very much open to seeing what you can present.

No, the OP was insulting and condescending. No small surprise you couldn't see it.

It seems to me he's genuinely curious, not condescending. If you all get that offended by him asking questions that even remotely threaten your world view, then you're just as sensitive and trigger-warning prone as the "snowflake liberals". Can you explain which parts are condescending?

How many trillions should we waste...err...invest in unreliable windmills and solar panels to slow the rate of increase? How will we know when we've spent enough?

If emission-free, reliable energy is something we need, why are the warmers also anti-nuclear?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, "evidence" has been fabricated. We haven't had a way to accurately measure temperature for long. Sure, climate changes but the assertion is man did it

Ok but where's your evidence for this? Just because "we haven't had a way to accurately measure temperature for long"? There are other ways to measure temperature you know...For example, scientists can use temperature proxies taking measurements of responses to past temperature change that are preserved in natural archives such as ice, rocks and fossils. There are also ways to measure chemical differences in snow formed at diff temperatures.

Liberals or Conservative, I don't understand why you people are so conspiratorial with this thing...regardless of whether it's worse or less worse than we think, why would we want take any chance at all? We don't have another earth to go to in which this if-experiment can be conducted...

...regardless of whether it's worse or less worse than we think, why would we want take any chance at all?

Because your "solution" is expensive, bad for the economy and less likely to work than more nuclear power.

 

[bt404]

Temperature proxies? Snow chemicals withing degrees? Yeah, right.

K so again, unsurprisingly, you don't debate the science. You question the entire concept of science itself, which isn't problematic if you had actually provided evidence to back up your assertions that my anecdotes are bull.

My challenge was simple, what would the climate be without man?

The rate would not be as fast as it is now. I fail to see how hypotheticals are relevant to what's actually happening.

If emission-free, reliable energy is something we need, why are the warmers also anti-nuclear?

I personally don't know too much about pros and cons of nuclear energy. But I do understand how some scientists could see it as potentially dangerous (see the Fukishima radiation plant)...And as Bill Nye says: "When we get to have 10,000 or 20,000 or 40,000 nuclear power plants, there are going to be accidents akin to this oil well explosion and the consequences are just huge. We really need to think about that."

Because your "solution" is expensive, bad for the economy and less likely to work than more nuclear power.

Holy shit.... there will be NO economy for your grand children if we don't do at least SOMETHING about climate change. Also, when you mean bad for the economy, do you mean bad for everyday working class individuals or do you mean bad for a couple of insulated rich oil magnets? Americans need to stop resorting to "the economy" as if it's some one-size-fit all term that implies general wealth. But that's an argument for another time, unless you indeed want to pursue that here...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Temperature proxies? Snow chemicals withing degrees? Yeah, right.

K so again, unsurprisingly, you don't debate the science. You question the entire concept of science itself, which isn't problematic if you had actually provided evidence to back up your assertions that my anecdotes are bull.

My challenge was simple, what would the climate be without man?

The rate would not be as fast as it is now. I fail to see how hypotheticals are relevant to what's actually happening.

If emission-free, reliable energy is something we need, why are the warmers also anti-nuclear?

I personally don't know too much about pros and cons of nuclear energy. But I do understand how some scientists could see it as potentially dangerous (see the Fukishima radiation plant)...And as Bill Nye says: "When we get to have 10,000 or 20,000 or 40,000 nuclear power plants, there are going to be accidents akin to this oil well explosion and the consequences are just huge. We really need to think about that."

Because your "solution" is expensive, bad for the economy and less likely to work than more nuclear power.

Holy shit.... there will be NO economy for your grand children if we don't do at least SOMETHING about climate change. Also, when you mean bad for the economy, do you mean bad for everyday working class individuals or do you mean bad for a couple of insulated rich oil magnets? Americans need to stop resorting to "the economy" as if it's some one-size-fit all term that implies general wealth. But that's an argument for another time, unless you indeed want to pursue that here...

But I do understand how some scientists could see it as potentially dangerous (see the Fukishima radiation plant)...

Is CO2 dangerous? Can we build plants better than Fukushima?

When we get to have 10,000 or 20,000 or 40,000 nuclear power plants,

I heard we were gonna build a trillion!!!
Nye is a fucking moron.

Holy shit.... there will be NO economy for your grand children if we don't do at least SOMETHING about climate change.

Nothing is better for the economy than expensive, unreliable "green energy".

We could get renewable energy by burning pandas for power. You know, for the children!!

Also, when you mean bad for the economy, do you mean bad for everyday working class individuals

Rich people can afford idiotic ideas better than poor and middle class people.