Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

[aberrant85]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/u...eory-default-wouldnt-be-that-bad.html?hp&_r=0

To quote:

Both [Obama and Boehner] were counting on the prospect of a global economic meltdown to help pull restive Republicans into line. On Wall Street, among business leaders and in a vast majority of university economics departments, the threat of significant instability resulting from a debt default is not in question. But a lot of Republicans simply do not believe it.

Seeing as how this is like deja vu all over again, I pose a question: On which issue does the GOP have the loosest grasp of facts and the broad consensus of experts when it comes in opposition to their preferred ideology?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I don't think the GOP as a platform opposes evolution, so I would have to say the areas they are the most wrong are 'consequences of gay marriage' and 'the drug war', both of which are defined in their platform.

Both of those are based almost entirely on their jesus beliefs and not even remotely on facts or reality. If you believed them, if we let gay marriage happen, people will legally be raping children by 2015.

 

[DaveFagan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/u...eory-default-wouldnt-be-that-bad.html?hp&_r=0

To quote:

Both [Obama and Boehner] were counting on the prospect of a global economic meltdown to help pull restive Republicans into line. On Wall Street, among business leaders and in a vast majority of university economics departments, the threat of significant instability resulting from a debt default is not in question. But a lot of Republicans simply do not believe it.

Seeing as how this is like deja vu all over again, I pose a question: On which issue does the GOP have the loosest grasp of facts and the broad consensus of experts when it comes in opposition to their preferred ideology?

The Republican philosophy can be summed up as "I got mine, I want more, and I'm keepin' it."

 

[ashurbanipal]

I think the basic mistake that Republicans, and conservatives in general, make, can be explained on a scale where one end is cooperation and the other is competition. Basically, human beings are dependent creatures. We depend on each other to survive, and that's a simple fact. It is not possible to eliminate cooperation, or even to eliminate beyond a certain fairly robust degree, without endangering the survival of many individuals, if not the entire species. Acting in a completely self-interested manner simply does not work.

Of course, going too far the other direction is also fatal. But it's pretty critical to maintain the bonds of cooperation, which are always fairly delicate.

 

[Muhammed]

Most definitely it's on immigration. And the Democrats are even worse.

They both constantly repeat the total falsehood that "immigrants do jobs that Americans won't do" as an excuse not to halt immigration.

And those of you who chose global warming need a reality check even more than they do.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The Republican philosophy can be summed up as "I got mine, I want more, and I'm keepin' it."

The Democrat philosophy can be summed up as "Yes, you got yours but we are going to take it from you whether you earned it or not cause, no matter how hard you worked, we are automatically just as equal, so I get to take as much from you as I possibly can... "

And then they follow up philosophy with action and, until we start punching hard back, they steal as much as they can so they can pay people to vote for them...

Oh and as for the OP, none of the above.

 

[johndylan1]

I think the basic mistake that Republicans, and conservatives in general, make, can be explained on a scale where one end is cooperation and the other is competition. Basically, human beings are dependent creatures. We depend on each other to survive, and that's a simple fact. It is not possible to eliminate cooperation, or even to eliminate beyond a certain fairly robust degree, without endangering the survival of many individuals, if not the entire species. Acting in a completely self-interested manner simply does not work.

Of course, going too far the other direction is also fatal. But it's pretty critical to maintain the bonds of cooperation, which are always fairly delicate.

Horrible misunderstanding of conservatives. Conservatives believe in cooperation. We believe in voluntary cooperation and not coerced cooperation. The effect of coercion is usually destructive, creating division. However, voluntary cooperation leads to appreciation and mutual respect.

 

[Hatuey]

I'd say evolution. Good luck finding a Bible Belt Republican who thinks evolution is the most logical and evidence supported explanation for life's development on earth. I can throw a dime in any major "liberal city" and hit about a thousand Democrats who think evolution is nonsense. You can't find that in Christland.

 

[Juanita]

All of the above.....

 

[sbrettt]

All of the above.....

LOL, I wouldn't say that, but I definitely wanted to pick more than one!

 

[reidster]

Gay marriage. If we're going to have something protected under the law, it has to be done equally for all. A better thing to talk about would to be whether marriage should have interrelations with government at all.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Horrible misunderstanding of conservatives.

Perhaps so...but let's see.

Conservatives believe in cooperation. We believe in voluntary cooperation and not coerced cooperation.

However government is constituted, it's going to be coercive in some way. It has to be, and I think I can guarantee that no one with very much intelligence thinks it should or could be otherwise. So the question is how to constitute government. The laws we have tend to force people into a competetive model of economic interaction.

Of course, I did not mean my remarks to extend to every area of life. I don't think conservatives see themselves as necessarily in competition with their families, for instance. But ceteris paribus, conservatives will opt for models of government which enforce competition instead of cooperation.

The effect of coercion is usually destructive, creating division.

I'm not sure what you mean, here. If you mean that the effect of coercion is to create resentment among those coerced, you may be right. However, I'm not sure this matters. I'm sure that time I got on to my daughter and coerced her to not stick a wire in the electrical socket left her with some resentment for a while. I'm sure there are some convicted murderers who were caught red-handed, but who nevertheless resent the police and the prosecutors who put them where they need to be.

The only relevant question is what people ought to do. The argument that government ought not to coerce cooperation because it will make some people upset is pretty weak. If people should cooperate in some manner, they should do so or be made to do so.

 

[Smeagol]

1. The thinking that getting the people who were going to vote for them anyway as worked up as possible wins elections. If my opposition to the democrats in off the charts in terms of passion and possibly hatred, I still just get one vote. Meanwhile, the emotional buttons the GOP official and unofficial leadership pushes often rooted in half-truths, propaganda and condescension that triggers these emotions drives away almost everybody except the people who were going to vote republican anyway. You win elections by getting more votes than the other side, not by getting your fewer voters outraged with the opposition and mentally manipulating them into thinking the same things we did first are destroying America when they do them.

2. Sticking our heads in the sand with respect to scientific polling data. Writing polls off as inaccurate because we didn't like the results and convincing ourselves the data is wrong then replacing them with polls we commission by pollsters who know who is signing their check and are expected produced the results they've been paid to deliver. The only thing funnier than seeing the GOP honestly think we were going to actually win the Whitehouse in 2012 was Anthony Weinner thinking he was going to be the Mayor of New York "because the polls are a bunch of lies trumped up by the media."

 

[Cyrylek]

Q. Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

A. In their conviction that the "socially conservative", anti-immigrant, statist minority in the party is somehow vital for their political survival.

Democrats (now apparently entirely dominated by the Unthinking Left) have nothing to offer to the American independents (who actually decide the outcome of most important elections, and who are overwhelmingly "socially liberal and fiscally conservative"). The only thing that separates the GOP from a long, long stretch in power is this fear of ditching the collectivist "ally", the twisted baggage of the Nixonian "Southern Strategy".

 

[clownboy]

When did the dems stop beating their wives?

Idiot poll.

 

[haymarket]

My vote went for trickle down economics since the effects are so devestating to the entire nation and its people far more than many of the other things on the list. The idea that you can craft policies and programs to benefit the rich and piss on everybody else and call it rain is the cause of so much of our problems going back several decades. And unlike some issues like global warming where there actually are sensible republicans, they almost all seem to subscribe to taking care of the rich before everybody else.

 

[mpg]

My vote went for trickle down economics since the effects are so devestating to the entire nation and its people far more than many of the other things on the list. The idea that you can craft policies and programs to benefit the rich and piss on everybody else and call it rain is the cause of so much of our problems going back several decades. And unlike some issues like global warming where there actually are sensible republicans, they almost all seem to subscribe to taking care of the rich before everybody else.

I've never heard of a single person who supports 'trickle down economics'.

 

[Linc]

Were you around in the 1980's, since you have never heard of a single person who supports 'trickle down economics'.

I've never heard of a single person who supports 'trickle down economics'.

 

[Linc]

All of the above--nice list.

 

[mpg]

Were you around in the 1980's, since you have never heard of a single person who supports 'trickle down economics'.

Yes, I was in my 20s and very interested in politics. I've heard many people express opposition to 'trickle down economics' but I've never heard a single person support it.

 

[Linc]

This was Reagan's economic policy, trickle-down, Reagonomics if you will.

Yes, I was in my 20s and very interested in politics. I've heard many people express opposition to 'trickle down economics' but I've never heard a single person support it.

 

[Henrin]

This was Reagan's economic policy, trickle-down, Reagonomics if you will.

Time machines...

 

[iacardsfan]

We should have been able to select more than one answer, it would make it much more effective.

 

[mpg]

This was Reagan's economic policy, trickle-down, Reagonomics if you will.

How does the term "trickle down economics" fit anything that happened in the 80s?

 

[mpg]

We should have been able to select more than one answer, it would make it much more effective.

You could've, and some people did.