• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?

Where does the GOP have the least grasp on reality?


  • Total voters
    54
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?

You know, for the bulk of the GOP, I don't think it's that they don't grasp reality.

I think it's that they know that no matter how bad the outcome of their policies might be for the average person, they will still be sitting pretty, and they just don't care all that much about serving the people. So they don't really care how bad of an idea it is. They'll be fine either way. They've been able to appeal to a certain demographic that *does* have a weak grasp on reality, and they are more than happy to take advantage of it for personal gain.
 
Last edited:
Johndylan1,

I apologize for the lateness of my reply. I had lost the conversation in the busy day-to-day that is my normal schedule.

johndylan1 said:
I can see that you have at least given substantial time and thought to your economic philosophy, therefore for you to not know what natural law refers and at the same time to speak of “social contract” seems unbelievable to me.

I'm not sure why. Surely you are aware there are quite a few controversies over what Locke or Rousseau (or any other philosopher who isn't alive anymore) thought or meant about...well, practically anything they wrote. You are surely also aware that references to "natural law" occur in the contemporary literature in political philosophy, and the referent from paper to paper is seldom the same. Before I can debate you, I need to know what your view of natural law is. That's the reason I ask.

Anyway, I'm more familiar than most with Locke. I have read the entirety (for example) of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding and both Treatises of Government. Frankly, I think Locke was very clever, but he was not the genius that Liebniz or Hume were, both of whom had somewhat different views about government. I'm less familiar with Rousseau, but I think I have the general drift of what he thought.

johndylan1 said:
No. Cooperating freely apart from governmental influence is common and is part of basic economic theory. For example: Specialization creates efficiency; we can freely choose to specialize in our chosen field and then exchange our surplus goods and services without coercion at a reduced cost to other parties. Cooperation without coercion. The competition is in providing the best product at the lowest price within one’s specialization in order to liquidate surplus goods and services. Even within our specialization cooperation occurs when demand outpaces supply from a specific vendor. The vendor may ally with another vendor to supply steep demand.

I'm not sure why you start your paragraph here with "no" since this seems to agree with what I said. Two specialized vendors may cooperate at some times and compete at others. It's not possible for them to do both, with regard to the same object, at the same time. They either both go after the same dollar with no agreement, or they have an agreement about it.

johndylan1 said:
It does follow because conservatives understand that cooperation at every level is not dependent on government. Conservatives do not seek to enact unnecessary laws, depending instead on market forces to correct inequities as they develop.

I still don't see how it follows from this or the relevant point in your last post that "conservatives will opt for models of government that maximize liberty, with a limited but important role reserved for government." Feel free to specify your premises that entail that conclusion, but right now, I don't see them.

Anyway, your use of the word "understand" is problematic. I might use it in a similar way to say that liberals "understand" something else, but what we both really mean is that conservatives and liberals believe something. Otherwise, I understand (not merely believe) all of what you say about conservatives. However, it seems to me that this is first an admission of a preference for competition over cooperation. It also seems to me that it's just downright wrong.

johndylan1 said:
It needs to be said here, that you should carefully read what you have written. If “government rightly coerces” without consent, you do not have cooperation. You have authoritarianism.

Cooperation just means "co-operation"--i.e. operating together. It doesn't say anything about the motives of the cooperators.

johndylan1 said:
“Consent” means using the democratic process, while protecting the voting minority’s rights.

That's very odd. I was recently asked whether I consent to have a minor elective surgery. I said yes and signed a form. Was I not actually giving consent? Geez, I should sue that doctor for all he's worth!

A little less tongue-in-cheek: consent means nothing like what you've said here. I'm afraid I don't see any connection at all between the concept of consent and the other things you've written.

johndylan1 said:
Crime is a poor example of coercion without consent. Arresting one for criminal activity is a protective function, appropriate to government. Criminal law also has the consent of the people.

Not all the people, obviously. Are you saying that if enough people think something should be done, that makes it OK? Surely not...

johndylan1 said:
You misunderstand consent. The outcome of a vote is consent, if and when all rights are protected, and the law remains within the framework of the constitution (this includes the legislative process). Moral sensibilities of the larger society may and will be embedded within the vote itself

I'm afraid I have no idea why you would say this. Consent is the act of giving permission or agreeing to some course of action with at least one other person. The people who vote on the winning side consent to the outcome, and I suppose as long as there is "buy-in" for the democratic process, there is a kind of meta-consent between all the voters.

Another reason I have no idea why you would say this is I'm simply not sure what your point is. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything I've said, or with the topic of the thread.

johndylan1 said:
As for the “social contract”, one must understand its philosophical underpinnings of natural law in order to understand that there is a limit to what the social contract entitles one to.

One's labor is an essential capital for developing their own private property and that must be protected.

I'm not sure what to say about this because I'm not sure what this says.

johndylan1 said:
Not so; every contemporary in their society did have access to the correct resources, and are not entitled to the labor that those men added to the resources that they fairly acquired. Except to the extent that consent or charity require.

What correct resources are you talking about? Also, how is this a response to what I said? My point was that no one builds anything all by themselves.

johndylan1 said:
Actually I would posit that it did work. That is why people from all over the world came here to build this great country. At times there was misery and abuse, but in general it was that philosophy that produced capital formation and an elevated standard of living for the entire world. I will also suggest that that philosophy is doomed where morality and charity do not exist. I am also not opposed to antitrust laws, depending on how they are enforced.

I'm not sure why someone would think that an economic approach that led to the Great Depression "worked."

johndylan1 said:
Think of two situations.

In the first a man waits at his mailbox for a welfare check to arrive, with distain in his heart he takes the check that is two days late and cusses the government agency that has failed to deliver his check on time.

The second man finds a charitable man at the local church, and receives a reprieve from the hardship he has been experiencing after a two day delay for the purpose of charitable collection. The man is grateful and appreciative, making new friends and opportunities.

OK, I am thinking of these two situations. What is this supposed to show?

johndylan1 said:
Not claiming that no government is good. That’s a strawman. Of course public projects for the general welfare, with consent, are appropriate. I am a proponent of infrastructure investments by government. The cronyism and pocket padding is what I object to.

Well, we can agree that cronyism is no good; any form of corruption is no good.

johndylan1 said:
Yes, but morality is not the sole perview of government, morality resides in the everyday decisions of each person. A collective notion of morality will inevitable be enshrined in law and therefore gains consent. And yet at times the law errors and requires pushback. Is it a greater moral principal to protect ones right to keep earnings from labor, or to provide Obama phones?

The former, of course, but that's a rather slanted view of the issue at hand. Suppose we phrase it this way instead: is it of greater moral value to protect individual earnings (especially those that are superfluous to survival), or to keep members of a society from starvation, homelessness, or severe illness? It looks to me like the latter is more important, especially when we realize that no one earns anything all on their own anymore. Social inputs are required for everything any human being produces these days (with extremely rare, and mostly uninteresting, exceptions).

Anyway, no, morality is not solely the purview of the government. But government ought to be moral and governed by morality, and moreover, in the business of enforcing morality in some cases. Understand, however, that I use morality in the philosophical sense. When government catches a murderer and holds him or her accountable, that is an enforcement of a moral, namely that it is wrong to murder. I would agree there is a large range of moral issues that the government should have minimal or no involvement in.
 
Their lack of support or outright opposition to applying "the final solution" to liberals, progressives, socialist and communists. Even if they don't want to go that far, they should at least allow decent people to exterminate the vermin. Bastards.
 
Their lack of support or outright opposition to applying "the final solution" to liberals, progressives, socialist and communists. Even if they don't want to go that far, they should at least allow decent people to exterminate the vermin. Bastards.

I hope you are joking.
 
That was an impossible choice. Needed an all of the above option. The GOP has declared a new War on Reality.
 
What day is it?

It makes as much sense, maybe even more, than accusing Reps of being out of touch with reality because you disagree with them.

It goes beyond disagreement. With debt default, global warming and evolution you have the majority of GOP politicians denying the research and conclusions of experts. Put another way, in the scientific community there is more consensus on the reality of climate change than there is on a link between tobacco and cancer, but the GOP still calls it an ongoing debate.

With gay marriage, trickle down economics and the drug war there is a large body of evidence that has accumulated over the years that the GOP will not recognize that undercuts their position.

With voting rights and reproductive rights they simply take stances that go against the majority of public opinion and concepts of liberty.

The only areas where I see it could come down to simple disagreement is perhaps makers vs. takers and immigration, but I'll bet there's evidence out there to contradict the GOP's positions in these cases.
 
It goes beyond disagreement. With debt default, global warming and evolution you have the majority of GOP politicians denying the research and conclusions of experts. Put another way, in the scientific community there is more consensus on the reality of climate change than there is on a link between tobacco and cancer, but the GOP still calls it an ongoing debate.

With gay marriage, trickle down economics and the drug war there is a large body of evidence that has accumulated over the years that the GOP will not recognize that undercuts their position.

With voting rights and reproductive rights they simply take stances that go against the majority of public opinion and concepts of liberty.

The only areas where I see it could come down to simple disagreement is perhaps makers vs. takers and immigration, but I'll bet there's evidence out there to contradict the GOP's positions in these cases.

I thought you said it was the GOP out of touch with reality. Everything you just posted shows it is you, not the GOP that is out of touch.
 
Because you say so?

Tsk, tsk. Do you really think I would issue such a challenge without the willingness to go into and prove it? Ok, maybe not to you, since you so far have not shown an openness to consider things.

Lets start with environment, we can get to the rest later if your still willing.

Do you own a car? Are you required to get DEQ checks there? If so, how much CO2 does your car/s put out? If more than one, I ask you to list each separately, with fuel mileage if you know it.
 
Because you say so?

Nope, because Limbaugh and Beck say so. Whatever they say is true, especially if absolutely all evidence on Earth says otherwise. That just proves that Earth is an America-hating leftist extremist, in the pocket of the Obama Regime.

. . . or something like that, at least.
 
Nope, because Limbaugh and Beck say so. Whatever they say is true, especially if absolutely all evidence on Earth says otherwise. That just proves that Earth is an America-hating leftist extremist, in the pocket of the Obama Regime.

. . . or something like that, at least.

One problem with your theory there. I'm the one he said that to and I'm not even republican and I don't listen to Limbaugh or even know who Beck is. But if you want to join your buddy aberrant in a debate to prove his statement or me wrong about who is out of touch, then bring it on.

Pick your poison, what issue to you want to take on?
 
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?

Tossup between gay marriage and evolution.
 
Tsk, tsk. Do you really think I would issue such a challenge without the willingness to go into and prove it? Ok, maybe not to you, since you so far have not shown an openness to consider things.

Lets start with environment, we can get to the rest later if your still willing.

Do you own a car? Are you required to get DEQ checks there? If so, how much CO2 does your car/s put out? If more than one, I ask you to list each separately, with fuel mileage if you know it.

Is global warming about aberrant85's car? Are there thousands of scientists studying aberrant85's car? Are they saying global warming would be kept in check if it weren't for aberrant85's car? If not, then what do you need to know about this one car for?

Is someone telling you that the problem with global warming is one person driving one car? If it isn't, then what is the point to your question?
 
Is global warming about aberrant85's car? Are there thousands of scientists studying aberrant85's car? Are they saying global warming would be kept in check if it weren't for aberrant85's car? If not, then what do you need to know about this one car for?

Is someone telling you that the problem with global warming is one person driving one car? If it isn't, then what is the point to your question?

If or When he answers, then the discussion can continue. In order to start making the case of whether or not, he a liberal, is in touch with reality on that subject or not. It is only the first step. I am not going to type out a 20,000 word dissertation that no one will read. Instead, I will take it, assuming his participation (or yours if you choose), one step at a time.

If you want to find the answer without waiting for him to reply, then you are always free to answer the same questions and people can learn from our discussions. Assuming of course you have a DEQ check done on your vehicles.
 
The Republican philosophy can be summed up as "I got mine, I want more, and I'm keepin' it."
Lib philosophy

Youve got yours and i want it and im going to keep it

If anything its Libs that have no sense of reality and live in fantasy land
 
If or When he answers, then the discussion can continue. In order to start making the case of whether or not, he a liberal, is in touch with reality on that subject or not. It is only the first step. I am not going to type out a 20,000 word dissertation that no one will read. Instead, I will take it, assuming his participation (or yours if you choose), one step at a time.

If you want to find the answer without waiting for him to reply, then you are always free to answer the same questions and people can learn from our discussions. Assuming of course you have a DEQ check done on your vehicles.

Okay: It passed Virginia emissions, so whatever that is, my car is a little lower than that. It's a 350 small block V8. My fuel mileage can get as high as 24 MGP combined, but I don't drive like that. I'm currently at about 15 MPG, average. What's that got to do with global warming? If you're going to say that I should buy a Prius to solve global warming, I'm going to call you an idiot, because one person buying a Prius doesn't impact global warming, at all. The amount of carbon emissions from industry and transportation, combined, across the globe, is a monumental amount. It's not about one car. It's about the whole industry.

So anyway, what are you trying to prove? That if I don't sell my Corvette and buy an '88 Geo Metro then I'm not allowed to acknowledge the existing body of scientific research, and should buy into the fairy tales of the right-wing? Something along those lines? I'm dying to hear.
 
I voted for reproductive rights. Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973. That was 40 years ago. Oh my goodness. Talk about being a sore loser. This battle was lost and it's obvious that the American people don't care.

Why are Republicans holding on to the abortion issue? It's so ridiculous. I'm an active Republican and have attended the conventions. There is starting to be more pro-choice or pro-STFU Republicans that are starting to speak up. Some Republicans are pro-life and pro-STFU but they don't want to vote against resolutions involving abortion because they fear being misconstrued as pro-choice by their buddies at the convention.

I don't think the Republican Party can kill (or abort) this issue any time soon. So many average Republicans are determined to hold on to this loss to remind themselves they are losers. I don't get it. I'm sure the elected Republicans will be thrilled when they don't have to pretend to care about this issue any more. It's the active Republicans at the party level that has kept this issue alive.

vasuderatorrent
 
Okay: It passed Virginia emissions, so whatever that is, my car is a little lower than that. It's a 350 small block V8. My fuel mileage can get as high as 24 MGP combined, but I don't drive like that. I'm currently at about 15 MPG, average. What's that got to do with global warming? If you're going to say that I should buy a Prius to solve global warming, I'm going to call you an idiot, because one person buying a Prius doesn't impact global warming, at all. The amount of carbon emissions from industry and transportation, combined, across the globe, is a monumental amount. It's not about one car. It's about the whole industry.

So anyway, what are you trying to prove? That if I don't sell my Corvette and buy an '88 Geo Metro then I'm not allowed to acknowledge the existing body of scientific research, and should buy into the fairy tales of the right-wing? Something along those lines? I'm dying to hear.

And you didn't answer the question of how much CO2 it puts out. If you passed, or even if you didn't, didn't they give you a sheet with a reading on it?
 
Who got more??
My rebate was about $12 at one time per month..
How about those getting back $12 million..
With high interest rates, they all made a fortune on their Reagan Rebates just on interest alone..
who will be the first to $100 billion--the first Trillionaire
The people who paid the most in taxes were allowed to keep more of what they earned.

Why do you believe you have a greater claim on the wealth others create than they do?
 
Do you often go back over 13 days to post on another??
Just to lay on some snark that isn't true??
The people who paid the most in taxes were allowed to keep more of what they earned.

Why do you believe you have a greater claim on the wealth others create than they do?
 
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".

The problem you have is that you have fallen for the myth that Republicans are really fiscally conservative when in power. Clinton balanced the budget, Bush turned a surplus into record deficits. Both parties spend when in power, but when it boosts the economy it pays off. GDP goes up the, tax base is increased and deficits go down.
Democrats have a much better record for growth, employment and even are better for the stock market. They also think legislation rooted in religious beliefs is against the Constitution.

History actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

According to McGraw-Hill’s Capital IQ, the S&P 500 has rallied an average of 12.1% per year since 1901 when Democrats occupy the White House, compared with just 5.1% for the GOP.

Likewise, gross domestic product has increased 4.2% each year since 1949 when Democrats run the executive branch, versus 2.6% under Republicans.

Even corporate profits show a disparity: S&P 500 GAAP earnings per share climbed a median of 10.5% per year since 1936 during Democratic administrations, besting an 8.9% median advance under Republicans, S&P said.

History Shows Stocks, GDP Outperform Under Democrats | Fox Business
 
I voted for reproductive rights. Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973. That was 40 years ago. Oh my goodness. Talk about being a sore loser. This battle was lost and it's obvious that the American people don't care.

Why are Republicans holding on to the abortion issue? It's so ridiculous. I'm an active Republican and have attended the conventions. There is starting to be more pro-choice or pro-STFU Republicans that are starting to speak up. Some Republicans are pro-life and pro-STFU but they don't want to vote against resolutions involving abortion because they fear being misconstrued as pro-choice by their buddies at the convention.

I don't think the Republican Party can kill (or abort) this issue any time soon. So many average Republicans are determined to hold on to this loss to remind themselves they are losers. I don't get it. I'm sure the elected Republicans will be thrilled when they don't have to pretend to care about this issue any more. It's the active Republicans at the party level that has kept this issue alive.

vasuderatorrent

gotta have a hot button issue so the parties can pretend they are substantially different.

the GOP has abortion.. the Dems have gun control.

I prefer the pro-STFU factions of both parties on these issues.
 
And you didn't answer the question of how much CO2 it puts out. If you passed, or even if you didn't, didn't they give you a sheet with a reading on it?

Yeah, but it's down in my car and I'm not in the mood to go down there. If I remember, I'll try to dig it out some time today, but I don't see how it matters. Why not just assume for argument that Virginia is the same as your state, and that I got whatever the average reading is -- say 60% of max or something?
 
Back
Top Bottom