LMAO..."voting irregularities?"

I can't deal with you sometimes.

Did you stop and read the poll questions??


Not saying Crimea/Ukraine isn't in Russia's sphere of influence, but to try to pretend that the vote wasn't a farce is just stupid.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

See below.

Demographics of Crimea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easte...a-votes-secede

FiveThirtyEight | Many Signs Pointed to Crimea Independence Vote — But Polls Didn’t


I'll see your economist article and raise you an actual poll with actual numbers from this actual year.



I'll ask you again: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It's also hilarious that you bolded that one sentence and not the one like two after it that briefly alludes to the propaganda+intimidation that blanketed Crimea since this whole thing came to a head.

Wouldn't that be answering NO to both questions?

Nyet.

Let me make sure I understand your point of view so we can have a proper discussion.

I think you are saying either

(1) Crimea vote was unfair and if a fair election was held, Crimea would vote to remain in Ukraine vs joining Russia

(2) Crimea vote was unfair and if a fair election was held, Crimea would probably have voted to join Russia regardless

I am saying (2).

For everyone of your FiveThirtyEight I would counter with a GlobalResearch and their argument.

What the Western Media Won’t Tell You: Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians Also Voted to Join Russia | Global Research

Crimea: Timeline and Legality of Referendum

Interesting timeline that says the Ukrainian government shadily moved away from EU agreements to a "free" loan from Russia to pay off it's national debts. Garnering a lot of protest from the EU and the USA.

Ukrainian People protested (% of people that were against this is unclear).

Ukrainian President flees to Russia. (Apparently it's was pretty sizeable)

Ukraine Congress takes over.

Ukraine President says he's in charge and authorizes Russia to occupy Crimea.

Now Putin says he has no more designs on Ukraine, except for the care of "ethnic Russians".

Not sure how real the unrest is in eastern Ukraine.

On sanctions, talking heads said may not be effective as China will do business with Russia.

Top commander held after base stormed, Ukraine's interim president says | Fox News

So, there's a revolution and the opposition party takes over your elected government, and you're surprised that those who supported the deposed president no longer want to play ball?

I'm certainly no Obama fan, and his saber-rattling over this issue seems ill-thought out, but East Ukraine/Crimea belongs with West Ukraine about as much as Shias belong with Sunnis. This is far more than a red-state/blue-state conflict.

We need to stop taking sides and romanticizing these revolutions. Anyone want to make the argument today that Egypt is better off than it was five years ago?

Well Egypt is better off than it was a year ago ;). And in that calculation, 5 years is way too short of a comparison - the question is what gave Egypt a chance at a better future, the current situation or the military status quo? I'd go with the current situation.

However, Egypt isn't Ukraine - the deposed government was democratically elected after all (and fairly too - all the international observers said it was on the up and up).

Reminds me of Rumsfeld's "old Europe" comment. The next series of exchanges should be entertaining.

Obama says military force will not be used to dislodge Russia from Crimea - The Washington Post

Haha - nicely done Obama.

Except Rumsfeld was dissing people we actually needed as allies, at a time when other diplomatic channels were trying to court them.

Wow. Mitch Mconnnell released an ad that briefly shows a clip of a basketball team in blue and white celebrating a championship.

Problem is, the team was Duke.

That's a pretty big unforced error for a candidate battling out of touch charges in a basketball mad state.

He then doubled down by replacing the ad with footage of Kentucky that contained a current player, causing UK to send a cease and desist due to a player appearing in an advertisement violating NCAA eligibility rules.

Don't think its a resounding successful enrollment but I'll take this result vs what it could've been after the first month.

Obamacare tops 6 million signups - Mar. 27, 2014

Nice little bio on Putin.

I remember Gorbachev, the wall coming down, Yeltsin, the coup attempt. It was messy. I do think Russia needed a strong leader then but wish Putin turned out nicer.

BBC News - Vladimir Putin: The rebuilding of ‘Soviet’ Russia

I hate hearing how the big GOP donors are apparently starting to coalesce around Jeb Bush. Can the country really do no better than Clinton vs. Bush? 24 years out of 32 with either a Bush or a Clinton as president? Why don't we just declare a monarchy and get it over with?

You'd think the country would've learned it's lesson after the first two Bushes.

Yeah it's funny these politcial dynasties are things we laugh about when they happen in other countries. On a similar note I was over at my parents house and they were talking about how Putin is ex-KGB... I guess the implication meaning the Russians are run by their spy agencies and are "crazy". Somehow GHW Bush is just different because he's one of us.

To be fair, the first Bush was actually pretty good. He actually raised revenues (taxes!) to help keep the debt in check, built a true world coalition to fight Saddam, basically started the ISS, reauthorized the Clean Air Act, signed the ADA and signed START 1. And I liked his "thousand points of light" program and he was pretty pragmatic about guns. Of course, he wasn't perfect. He appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court (what a fucking disaster), waffled on Somalia, pardoned the Iran-Contra conspirators and had the misfortune of being both uncharismatic and having an economic downturn. But overall Bush 1 is one of the better Presidents of the last 50 years.

Bush II, on the other hand, was a frigging disaster.

Bush I is easily the most underrated president of my lifetime.

Wouldn't be surprised if there is some 'aggressive' counting but good progress nevertheless.

Obamacare On Track To Hit 7 Million Sign-Ups On Deadline Day: Sources

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

According to the LA Times, 9.5 million Americans are now insured due to the ACA - either through exchanges, private companies or Medicare. That can't be seen as anything less than a pretty massive success. I wonder how many more millions would be signed up if some of the Republican-controlled states actually didn't actively try to hinder it (ex. North Carolina, whose "exchanges" are purposely an unmitigated disaster).

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Ryan Budget Gets 69 Percent of Its Cuts from Low-Income Programs

This is a rather simplistic response. It sounds good, but it still has brought big challenges and situations that still hamper the "success." I think it'll be 2 or 3 years before we see how the law impacts things. What kind of premium hikes will we see? Change in insurance coverage? Who will pay for it? Will employers shift even more (or drop it all together) burden on to their employees? What about the overall increase in Medicare/Medicaid spending? Overall health care spending? How will the middle class be pinched? Most importantly, will Americans actually live healthier? A lot of unanswered questions, and as I said, still a few years off, I think. As noted in the article:

"Long-term stability could be undermined if newly insured people do not pay their bills or if they drop coverage in coming months because they are unhappy about the high deductibles or narrow doctor and hospital networks some plans offer.

Some people have had to pay higher premiums to replace old plans that did not comply with the law's consumer standards.

More ominously, some insurance industry officials are warning they may raise rates substantially next year. Major rate hikes could push out healthy consumers, undermining the law's marketplaces and recharging political opposition."

The millions of people that now have access to healthcare are already better.

As someone who was unable to get even mediocre health insurance for almost 5 years, hooray for a badly timed misdiagnosis, I dont think its a coincidence that I was suddenly able to after obamacare was announced. Thankfully I now have a union thats currently providing for me but I can rest easier knowing that I have an option once my COBRA runs out if I lose that. Even after getting my diagnosis fixed I still have an awful family history that would scare companies into exorbitant rates otherwise.

No, no, no - people have Paul Ryan all wrong. All these programs which help the most needy of Americans do nothing more than stand in the way of those Americans pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and succeeding, said no one who ever had to depend on these programs ever.


Such as?


I think it was 2010, when the Pre-Existing Condition interim insurance plan went into effect, offering coverage for people who could never get non-employer group / non-Medicaid coverage.

Or it could have also been 2010, when adult dependents up to 26 could be covered under their parents' insurance (a change both citizens and insurance companies loved by the way).

Or also 2010, when the law required that plans cover preventative care.

Or this year, when pre-existing conditions were no longer allowed to be used to deny coverage or hike up premiums.

But your definition of success might be different. I accept that.


Whatever the market will bear. But now that the plans are commodities (in the sense that they're all defined the same with the same coverage levels - though other differences do exist, of course), plans that want to hike their rates run the risk of being undercut and losing membership. I guarantee you the actuaries have already thought of this, and actuaries tend to have a lot of power in health insurance companies.


Fine with me. The more we decouple health insurance from employment the better off we are as a country.


Call me when we get serious about cutting defense and security spending, and we'll talk.


An issue regardless of ACA.


Yeah, right. People who now have insurance, who used to fear any medical issue whatsoever because it could bankrupt them, due to their not having insurance, are going to drop coverage because of deductibles or networks? Is this author of this article serious?

"Yeah, I'm dropping my coverage because I had to pay $500 when I broke my leg and had to go to the ER. I'd rather not have insurance and have to pay the full $26,000. Thanks Obama!"


We've been over this. In this thread. The number of people who had to do this is vanishingly small, and most of them got a reprieve anyway.


Newsflash: "insurance industry officials" say this every year. Now, it's a different reason each year, and this year's reason happens to be ACA, but still....


This is the bottom line. Almost 10 million people have coverage who didn't. That's 10 million people who no longer have to live in fear of getting injured or sick and how it will ruin them financially (or kill them should they decide not to seek care due to cost).

Good luck to you and wish you the best in electing the right President.

BBC News - Afghans set to vote in historic presidential election

I saw something in one article I read earlier that 85% of people have already paid their premiums for the first month or something. (I don't recall the actual number and time measurement to be honest).

If we could get somebody in the White House to run these queries, we could stop speculating. :)

SELECT count(users), registered FROM national_health_care_database WHERE registered='yes';

SELECT count(users), paid FROM national_health_care_database WHERE paid='yes';

SELECT count(users), prev_uninsured FROM national_health_care_database WHERE prev_uninsured='yes';

Does healthcare.gov keep track of who pays? I thought it was just basically a matchmaker: here are your options, buy from one of these guys.

SI

It certainly could keep track or insist that providers report numbers, but I'm guessing since nobody can do anything beyond speculate that it doesn't. We won't really know anything until next year's tax season (when we have to show proof with our tax returns).

Wrong. I told you I read something with approximately those statistics. It wasn't a speculation of "85% vs. 0%" it was me approximating so that someone else didn't go out and find the article and see that it said "84%" and give me shit for that.

Do you really want me to waste my time going out and finding it? :p

Looks like it applies just to CA enrollees, but that's a significant % of the overall, so it's likely fairly representative.

http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci...es-increase-by

I guess its pretty good all things considered.



Karzai called our bluff and I won't be surprised if we stay.

Its strange how Palestinian-Israeli issue isn't the front and center anymore as other issues in Syria, Kiev, Egypt etc are more pressing.

Doesn't look as if anything is going to happen in the Obama presidency. Abbas seems to have the West Bank under control and wondering what Hamas is up to in Gaza ... assume the Egyptian re-revolt has helped.

Log In - The New York Times

Hooray freedom.

Just another data point.

Uninsured Rate Falls To Lowest Since 2008: Gallup

Everything I read today is depressing.

A question on the 1 in 6... I am aware the Ukraine is in Eastern Europe and a former part of the USSR. Not sure on a blank map if I would know what is Belarus, Ukraine, Lithania, etc... Are we talking that sort of mix-up or they think Ukraine is France or in South America?)

(Of course I also don't favor military intervention :) )

It's directly East of Poland. You might get it confused with Belarus (which is right above it), but if you stop and think "well it has to have Black Sea access in order to have Crimea) then you'd make the deduction that it's the southernmost (and larger) of the two.

Um, I'm almost certain that the reason for the discrepancy is that the Obama administration is counting enrollments from the beginning of open enrollment for the exchanges (10/1/2013) through 3/31/2014.

Am I misinterpreting the article, or is that just a big error they made?

Which would be surprising as HuffPo is usually slanted leftwards.

agreed.
I could easily place Lithuania/Latvia and Estonia but I might have confused it for Belarus.

Just play Victoria 2 a few times and you'll be an expert on placing countries and cultures around the world.

Shoot, play Risk.

Exactly. I mean, I've heard Ukraine is very weak in that game ;)

Ukraine not weak! How about I smash your board to pieces?!

I am the farthest thing from being a political person...I don't lean left, I don't lean right...I attempt to make an informed decision...

I have to ask though...how does one take this article? Is it slanted left, right or covering all bases?

Age of Ignorance by Charles Simic | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

(I also know it is 2 yrs old, it was just recently shared with me today and I made a comment on it)

That's just elitist tripe by a liberal professor. His list at the bottom is all left wing talking points and he's persecuting the right wing, especially Christians, with his gross mischaracterizations.

(so? how'd I do?)

SI

Personally I take it as a leftist slant. There is a meme in the piece that corporations want most Americans to remain dumb so they can better manipulate them. Usually the right-wing thinkers think that it's the government that want people to remain dumb so they'll rely more on the government and thus democrats.

But what seals the deal for me is this list of lies on the American people that he points out:

Christians are persecuted in this country.
The government is coming to get your guns.
Obama is a Muslim.
Global Warming is a hoax.
The president is forcing open homosexuality on the military.
Schools push a left-wing agenda.
Social Security is an entitlement, no different from welfare.
Obama hates white people.
The life on earth is 10,000 years old and so is the universe.
The safety net contributes to poverty.
The government is taking money from you and giving it to sex-crazed college women to pay for their birth control.

Pretty much all them are what the left views as right wing lies.

I took it as an attack on the right..it was blatant. I support the theory of the article, but the slant he took was just blatant. I had to ask, because when I commented on it, no one took it the way I saw it. I was like...What? That list on the bottom doesn't give it away?

Of course it's slanted, but so what? It's an editorial on a blog, not a news article.

I think that kind of rhetoric is a way to try to sell his liberal opinions to young minds. If you adopt liberal opinions, and you're a good, educated, compassionate person. It doesn't even matter if you actually do anything good for anyone, or if you've never graduated high school, you're smart and you're good and better than the other side if you vote for the correct side. But if you have any conservative opinions on anything, well then you just might be ignorant and racist.

I think we all have those family or friends on acquaintances on either side who are constantly yelping about their superior politics on facebook or whatever, and are constantly trashing the intelligence of their other side - even if they can't hold a job and live with their parents.

So if you flesh that out, there's one correct opinion to have on anything, and if you deviate from that you're an uneducated ignorant wacko that "votes against self-interest". That last part just comes across as so dismissive and arrogant and ignorant of all the different perspectives people can have that can be based on all kinds of different things. He tries to express his point by using extreme examples of things those "backwards" conservatives believe, but I bet he'd apply that "voting against self-interest" thing to a lot more broad viewpoints.

Let's say every person in the United States got some objectively-measured great education. I'd still hope that we'd have disagreements on things. That's the only way society can evolve and keep that intellectual vigor, for our ideas and practices to constantly be tested and re-evaluated, etc.

Listen to these 'persecuted christians'!


And then there's this jewel


Gay Rights Advocates Are Nazi 'Homofascists' Who Will Kill Christians, Rick Wiles Claims

There is a massive difference between having an opinion and a demonstrable fact. An opinion can be right or wrong, a fact cannot also be fiction. What he is pointing out is that when opinions based on questionable or outright false data is taken as fact and repeated as such is when being an uneducated ignorant comes into play.

And this is something that stupid conservatives do. As opposed to enlightened liberals.

Edit: He's selling the concept of being enlightened and educated as a liberal trait, and the concept of being uneducated and ignorant as a conservative trait. That's what he's selling on behalf of his "correct" way of thinking. There's people on the right that attempt to do the same kind of thing, maybe with just a different flavor (and not so much in academia). But those people pitch the same thing, have the correct opinions, and you're better and smarter and more moral than Obama. Even though he went to Harvard law school and accomplished things in his life, whereas the target maybe works as at gas station and can barely read. This kind of rhetoric gives people unbelievable confidence about the infallibility about their opinions on things.

As has been said before, reality has a liberal bias.

You can have differences of opinion. It is impossible to have differences of fact. That is why people want to paint their opinions as fact. When people hold on tightly to their opinions in the face of facts that show the opinion is false, then there is a breakdown in logic and reason. To celebrate and encourage that breakdown is toxic.

This.

You're doing exactly that here when you stay stuff like -


It's intoxicating to feel that you're intellectually and morally superior, and all you have to do get that feeling is have the correct political opinions. That's the product being sold. The expressed logic of how ignorance can lead to belief in objectively incorrect facts is sound, and its a thing that obviously happens. That product is so powerful once politics is involved that people can for example, "not believe" in global warming despite an overwhelming scientific consensus. They wouldn't doubt any other overwhelming scientific consensus, but throw in just a dash of politics, and suddenly, they think it's all bullshit or that they're smarter than the scientists.

I just get annoyed when I see that kind of phenomenon explained and expressed in one-side political terms like this, because people like this blogger, and you with that quote about "reality having a liberal bias", are using that very same power to portray liberals as just being more intelligent than conservatives. This is why you can have college dropouts who watch the Daily Show who believe they're intellectually and morally superior to anyone with different political opinions on anything, not just global warming, but anything - things where there's actually room for reasonable disagreement. It's the same phenomenon that causes people to "not believe in" global warming. It's just a shitty backdrop for any conversation about anything. He, and you, are using a real phenomenon to frame your political opinions as fact, just like you accuse those backwards conservatives of doing.

I guess when you are trying to castigate others for being morally superior, your snark meter gets disabled. Which it was if you took the "reality has a liberal bias" line as a statement of fact. You haven't heard that joke before?

If you were being snarky about the "reality having a liberal bias" thing, it's easy to miss, because that's an idea that IS thrown around, in a sincere matter, in political threads here all the time. This blogger is throwing a similar idea in the very article we're talking about.

It is usually used when people try to paint opinions that can be easily disproven as facts.

Sometimes, but it's also used in conversations where moderate actual opinions are expressed about the economy, or taxes, or national defense, or the criminal justice system. I think that's the goal, to take those opinions that can easily be disproven as fact, and try to use them to make broader points about the correctness of liberal opinions generally, and the level of enlightenment of the people that have the correct political opinions.

Nobody's going to go after pilotman, for example, about his expertise involving planes. Because there's no or minimal politics involved with that. But a climate scientists, shit, those guys are all corrupt and/or incompetent. The difference is politics touches more on the concept of global warming than it does how an airplane works. I think I see the same thing to a lesser extent with my knowledge of law, and the criminal justice system. Since those are areas that touch upon politics, you're challenged a lot more. That's not to say my opinions are any more valid than anyone else's on things that come up in those areas, but I think I do know more of the proveable facts about the way things actually work. But that won't stop someone in a politically charged issue to think that they're the real expert, or that all the experts are corrupt and on the take. That's the product being sold. If you have the correct political opinion, it's such a powerful force that you're smarter than climate scientists or lawyers or whoever in whatever field. Because "truth has a liberal bias", or in other words, the more liberal opinion is "the truth". That's a pretty broad idea that goes way beyond extreme conservative objectively wrong facts like those listed in the article. "People vote against their self-interest" is another one. That's not talking about Obama hating white people. That's talking about poor people being stupid for not always voting for Democrats and not having the correct political opinions.

The "reality has a well known liberal bias" quote is a Stephen Colbert line. He's actually making fun of conservatives who dismiss facts in the name of what they believe. And yes, liberals do it, too. And it's fair to point out when either side does it.

But it's kind of weird how this blog post stirred up so much ire. Yes, this guy thinks his liberal opinions are correct and conservative ones are wrong. I think my liberal opinions are correct, too. If I didn't, then I wouldn't be a liberal. I wouldn't make liberal arguments. And I didn't realize that I shouldn't be making many of those arguments if I was a college dropout watching the Daily Show. I guess all my political posts before May 2012 should be deleted, since that would describe me before then.

And your rant here is really odd, because you seem to be arguing that liberals are prone to dismiss scientists or other experts when they would love to defer to scientists on almost any political issue that involves science. The legal argument is just so bizarre, because there are experts on both sides. I don't have to dismiss experts there, because I can turn to other experts that support what I believe.

What I get from your post is that liberals shouldn't be certain in their arguments. As I said before, I do think (for the most part) that the more liberal opinion is "the truth", which is why I'm a liberal. That doesn't mean I think all people who believe the opposite are stupid.

Huh? Maybe I missed something (sarcasm?) but all climate scientists are corrupt and/or incompetent?

SI

A lot of people think that, check the global warming thread. I've made that point a lot there. Global warming is this hugely debated thing despite the overwhelming scientific consensus. There are no (or almost no) other overwhelming scientific consensuses that are so hotly debated. The difference is politics. Political beliefs create this arrogance in people.

I'm not sure how this helps your case. The people dismissing climate scientists tend to be those who align with the GOP.

"Reality has a well known liberal bias" is a derivative of "truth has a liberal bias", which long pre-dates Colbert.

I think it's possible for two people far more intelligent than me to have different political opinions, and for neither to be inherently correct. I know that's "bizarre" these days. I think people can feel strongly about their opinions while recognizing that they're simply opinions. It just annoys me when people express those opinions from a expressed place of inherent intellectual and moral superiority. Which again, is the product blogs like this sell. Which is why people can think they're experts on climate science, or the law, or whatever.

When you say there "are experts on both sides" in the law that kind of makes my point. You're taking the legal field and putting it into the realm of politics. Since law is then characterized as politics, people have that arrogance that some conservatives do with global warming. And since there's a dash of politics there, people can feel like they know more than the experts. See the Martin/Zimmerman thread here. People got really pissed off at me towards the beginning for explaining the concept of self-defense and what the state had to actually prove. They believed they knew better than I did, or that I was biased or racist or whatever, because of politics. (Edit: As people and the news media educated themselves, I think more people understood the prosecution challenges, and there wasn't nearly as much outrage that it looked like there might be early on.)

And why wouldn't they have that arrogance? The blogger sells the idea to college kids that ignorance is an= conservative problem, and that enlightenment is a trait of liberals. A lot of people really believe in that underlying "truth". Those people can disagree with me and we might both have good points. And me might have totally different values and not even agree on what outcome is the "best". But, for example, the 18-year old dropout working at a gas station doesn't cross-over into inherent objective correctness in all discussions with anyone he disagrees with just because he adopts the correct political opinions.

You know, molson, we've been over this before.

To quote myself from that thread:

How does that not help my case? There's obviously conservatives who have that political arrogance that makes them feel superior to science and objective truth. I rant against them in the global warming thread all the time. I did notice one time there you called me out there as being "bitter". I kind of was bitter, but, I was a little confused why you were calling me out, considering we agreed on what I was ranting about. I thought maybe you weren't listening to what I was saying and just assumed that, since I expressed some conservative opinions on the board, I must also believe global warming is a hoax. I just think a lot of liberals, in addition to a lot of conservatives, have that that political arrogance in all kinds of different fields. They're taught to believe that if there's a political component to a discussion, they're just inherently right and inherently more intelligent than the other side. There are 18-year old college freshmen who fall for this rhetoric and do literally believe they are objectively smarter and more enlightened than a professor or lawyer or climate scientist, if those people don't have the correct political opinions. When opinion is characterized as objectively correct fact, that it's easy to see why those experts aren't given any deference on even provable facts.

This x100000

Source: Conspiracy Theory Poll Results - Public Policy Polling

Well, mostly I was trying to gently needle you, but are you saying we were in agreement? Because that's not how I took your post. I took your post as implying that we were somehow giving articles that supported the theory of global warming a pass on the suspicion that pay-to-publish articles were of dubious merit.

Here's the post in question: Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

I don't fall under any of those. The fact that someone else thinks that global warming is a hoax doesn't make your opinion on another issue inherently superior to mine. I know that's not what you're specifically saying, but I do believe that's the idea the blogger is pushing.

And I think the political arrogance that creates some of those poll results can be present in all kinds of people on all sides of the political spectrum, especially impressionable young people. Part of that is youth too, thinking you know everything.

But let's just assume that conservatives as a group really are objectively dumber, on average, than liberals. I know a lot of people think that, even if they often don't come out and say it. Still, that has nothing to do with me, and my opinion, or on my knowledge of a proveable fact. I'm smarter and more educated and more knowledgeable than a lot of liberals (and a lot dumber and less educated and less knowledgeable than others).

I didn't say you did. You need to step away from the persecution complex, my friend.

No, it was a clumsy paragraph, but I was talking about that same political arrogance I'm talking about here. I was just amused by the idea that because science and research needs money to exist, then therefore all of their opinions about global warming are invalid. People say that in that thread all the time. They don't question the handful of for-profit anti-global warming studies. THOSE are beyond reproach for some reason. They don't question any of the other millions of scientific consensuses out there as being corrupted by money. It's just global warming that gets that treatment. Again, because politics. Political beliefs are SO strong, that science and expertise in a field just can't compete.

I'm just going to quote myself again:


The GOP has driven away its intellectual conservatives (who have not necessarily gone to the Democrats) over the course of the past quarter century and it is that trend that has made the group of people who self-identify as Republicans (and even more so the folks who self-identify as Tea Party) collectively dumber, which results in the kind of statistics I posted, and many more like them - such as global warming "belief" statistics, birther stuff, etc....

That's all this is.

Like I said in the next sentence, I know you're not saying that. Or at least, I think you're not, but you did appear to assume I thought global warming was a hoax. I think you skimmed the paragraph, saw "molson", and made an assumption.

But I was talking about the blogger specifically. I think he is pushing that idea, that's what that rhetoric is all about. That's why he ties the outlandish stuff (Obama hates white people), in with stuff like people "voting against their interest". He's trying to make that bridge. He's saying if you're ignorant and uneducated, you might think global warming is a hoax, and even worse, you might vote against a Democrat at some point.

I would argue that the fact that someone believes that global warming is a hoax, or believes in creationism, does not necessarily make their opinion on other issues inherently inferior, but I would say that it often leads to their opinions on other issues being taken less seriously (to put it nicely).

If someone is anti-fact, then I'm sorry, but I think most people have a reduced interest in trying to engage in a conversation with them around other facts.

It's possible to have conservative views on some things but also "believe in" global warming and evolution. You're lumping them together. I think the blogger is trying to lump them together by identifying ignorance as a conservative trait. I'm saying that those poll results posted by flere-imsaho don't make other liberal-leaning opinions on say the economy, taxes, criminal justice, the role of appellate courts, etc., inherently correct, and they don't make liberals inherently more intelligent or enlightened. But I think a lot of people believe they do. Political opinions create arrogance that make some people think they know better than climate scientists, or lawyers, or whoever. Is that really a controversial statement? Don't we all know know-it-all 18-year old liberals and conservatives that think they have the whole world figured out, and who scoff and dismiss people with actual accomplishments and experience in their lives? I think that mindset exists partly because of the nature of youth, but that it's fueled by professors like that blogger, and family members who may be liberal or conservative, everyone can be influenced.

I'm not responding to you guys as much as I am the blogger, and the mindset he expressed.

In a similar fashion, I would imagine there are a lot of Truthers who share political views with DT and flere.

I'm barely even conservative. It's not about politics for me. I think it's what I perceive as logic errors or dismissive arrogance that I freak out on. I get offended for some reason when conservatives or people from rural places are portrayed as generally backwards, or when the concept of faith and/or prayer and/or religion is attacked as a whole as something ignorant and backward. (I'm not talking about "christian prosecution", so let's not take that leap), or in the world cup and olympics threads when entire countries are just deemed to be unworthy of hosting international events and people seem to just revel in how horrible these backwards countries are. And my best friend's 22-year old loser brother (and people like him) who posts nothing but arrogant and dismissive liberal rants on facebook annoys the shit out of me. Not his opinions, the fact that he thinks, as a drop-out shelf stocker, he's actually smarter and more enlightened than anyone with different political opinions about anything. He really does. I don't feel the same way about the educated liberal posters here. But I'm just reminded of him when I read that blog. And as for politics, I mean, you've seen it it, I'll go on a 4-page rant in an NFL thread about a non-political thing. But I'm a pretty shitty conservative except when it comes to maybe gun rights and the role of the appellate judiciary.

Truthers? 9/11 truthers you mean?

Note: In the following post I use "you" and "me" not to refer to molson and DT but to refer to non-specific general people. I'm just in a rush and don't want to take the time to make my post more non-specific.

Oh, no doubt it is. I'm not saying if you believe in one of those things for example that I automatically put you in the "you're nuts" box and I don't talk to you.

I'm just saying that it disinclines me to engage in an intellectual, logic & fact based conversation with you. We might still get into one and you might show that you're rational about other things sure, but the odds are that I'll steer the conversation in a different direction before we even get there because of my perception (based upon what you've demonstrated so far) of the value that you place on logic/science.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. That's sort of the thought process there.

Sure, but the key point, that we've emphasized time and time again, is that there are no Truthers in Congress (where, presumably they would be D, I guess), while there are several Birthers in Congress (where they are R).

And that's just one example of false equivalence.

I think that's totally fair. I'd put them in that box with truthers.

No, that's true, but I thought that what he was saying is that often times the fact the GW Denial exists in the GOP is used to discredit all GOP ideas (and more with respect to internet arguing than legislation). This would be the (lesser in scale, sure) analog.

So let's say there's more batshit crazy Republicans than Democrats. I'm fine with conceding that. What does that prove? What is the relevance of that to people who aren't in either extreme? I think people like that blogger do try to push that idea and use it to promote the general correctness of Democrats and liberals.

Birthers only exist as a tool towards impeachment. They are hoping more than believing.

Truthers are just illogical wackadoos.

If it was GW Denial alone that was used to discredit all GOP ideas, then that would be wrong. But happily for those of us who would like to discredit all GOP ideas, there's a wide range of batshit crazy opinions held by Republicans, often in large numbers, and it is this that leads one to believe most GOP ideas should be discredited.

Let's say you own a baseball team, and you hire a new manager. The first thing he does is to have the speedy right fielder bat cleanup, and this is a guy who manages about 5 HRs a year. OK, a little odd, but not crazy, right? I mean, maybe this guy has a plan. But then his next step is to put the big fat guy who used to bat cleanup as a DH in center field. Kinda worrying. I mean, maybe he has a plan, maybe this is a neat idea, but you're worried, right? Well, your fears are confirmed when he makes the catcher also the closer (catches for 8 innings, pitches for one), and demotes your star shortstop and captain to your affiliate in New South Wales, Australia.

That's today's GOP for you. Don't believe me? These are the guys who thought it'd be OK to default on the debt, who think that women can choose not to get pregnant if they get raped (or that their body otherwise protects them from getting pregnant), who continue to believe Obama was born in Kenya and all sorts of other quality stuff.


Yes, exactly. While the opinions of Democrats might not be ideal, in relation to the batshit crazy opinions of the GOP they're considerably better, from an objective standpoint. Thus if we assume that the nature of both sides' policy initiatives arise from their opinions, we can also assume that this means that Democrats' policy initiatives are objectively better. All of which is to be taken in the spirit of "broadly-speaking"

Or, to put it in the form of a word problem:

IF Republican opinions = batshit crazy AND Democratic opinions >= batshit crazy (where > means "better than"), then policy initiatives linked to said opinions are of corresponding merit. Discuss. :D


Anyway, for further reading on this subject: Groupthink - RationalWiki

You don't have to convince me of that. I want no part of the current GOP. Was just trying to flesh out molson's point a bit.

Source: A cage match between birthers and truthers | Jay Bookman

With that, could you acknowledge then that I have at least some kind of a point here? It's not a "persecution" or anything, I'm not saying that, but one certainly have an uphill climb in any debate, and in gaining any respect, when you happen to share some non-crazy ideas, or share some non-scary values, with a group of people that have a lot of members that do have objectively crazy ideas. I think the same thing goes with religion and spiritual beliefs. There are some people who are much less quick to accept your opinion as valid unless you really strongly emphasize that you're not one of "those" conservatives, or one of "those" church-goers. So maybe I'm just a little too quick to be defensive in those respects, but it comes form a place of legitimately having to make those distinctions in my real life. A lot. So then when I see that blogger fanning those flames of political arrogance - I do have that reaction.

Yes, you definitely have a point.

This shocks me:

Kathleen Sebelius is resigning

I mean the administration is claiming the ACA sign-ups to be a massive success. So why leave now?

They certainly can, but I don't think there's a problem with someone because they feel their opinion is "correct". There are opinions where I'm not as certain, and I argue those differently than others. But if I didn't think liberal economic policies were correct, then I wouldn't make strong arguments supporting them. If I didn't think equal rights for gays was the correct opinion, then I wouldn't make strong arguments in support of that. If that makes me, in your eyes, someone who acts intellectually or morally superior, then so be it.


But I'm not placing it there. It is there. We have brilliant legal minds who disagree strongly about how the Constitution should be read and applied. and that's not a new thing. We've had that throughout history. And just because someone is a lawyer, that doesn't automatically make them more "correct" about a legal issue. The college dropout or gas station employee that you oddly denigrated while arguing against intellectual superiority (?) has every right to make that argument whatever side they're on. I'm not going to stop believing my legal opinion is correct just because you're a lawyer and have the opposite view.

I do acknowledge that my opinions can be wrong. I welcome anyone to try and prove me wrong. But that doesn't mean I don't believe my current opinion is correct.