It means even though he is doing nothing about it---he will mock your verbal concern/faith and act like you should be doing more.
UVA Declines White House Invitation
- Thread starter Hank_
- Start date
- Status
Ah, new baby. Congrats. You're understandably focused on a smaller circle right now.
I hear they make you find god, so theres that.
I think everyone could say the same for you. But here we are. So what makes me different from others that you engage? And what are you trying to accomplish?
You trashed my poll? Are you serious, Clark? It's not my poll, it's the Pew Research Center. And dismissing multiple polls that have WIDE margins indicating conservatives being significantly more tolerant is telling. And not only did you dismiss that poll, you were wildly dramatic and said it was about as helpful as a poll that asked, "should we keep walking?" Like I've said before, you care more about emotions than facts and figures...
So blood violence, civil disobedience, adhering the call of Maxine Waters and harassing republicans everywhere you see them is cool then, right? You're still a tolerant people - just as long as those people have the right views?
Also, what do you want? Equal opportunity or equal outcome? Because as best I can tell, nobody is legally restricted from employment, financial, or educational opportunities. Republicans aren't against poor people, they're against dependency. The greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more likely it is that the receiver will develop a sense of entitlement. Also, does it bother you that republicans, on average, volunteer more and donate more towards charities?
Alll those bat shit crazy moderate conservatives..........
Precisely
Edit: being non-hyperbolic for a second, the ones who agree with most of the Republican platform -not the moderates, not the extremists, but the majority - are the ones I can't sympathize with. They're the ones I interact with daily and they're the ones with beliefs that I just can't reconcile with the person I am or want to be. Way too much judgement, too much fear, too much willful ignorance.
Is the same true of the majority on the Left? Maybe, but I'm largely insulated from them. I don't interact with many party-line Liberals in my day-to-day life and I don't watch cable news.
Last edited:
Um, no. Taxes are progressive. Rich people always pay more. And as it is, more than 44% of Americans don't even pay taxes.
Good. Nobody should be interested in spending trillions of dollars to lower the global temperature by 0.2 degrees.
lol really? There are 47 Muslim-majority nations. The six countries on the travel ban comprise less than 10% of the Islamic population. You might as well say he has a travel ban on Catholics as well, since Venezuela is also on the list.
I trashed your use of both polls. The first was taken among Northeast college students during Trump's Presidency. The second was taken during his first year as President, as well. How people feel between an antagonistic President they didn't vote for and an irrelevant & powerless former candidate or/and political party is not comparable. You're pretending they are equal.I think everyone could say the same for you. But here we are. So what makes me different from others that you engage? And what are you trying to accomplish?
You trashed my poll? Are you serious, Clark? It's not my poll, it's the Pew Research Center. And dismissing multiple polls that have WIDE margins indicating conservatives being significantly more tolerant is telling. And not only did you dismiss that poll, you were wildly dramatic and said it was about as helpful as a poll that asked, "should we keep walking?" Like I've said before, you care more about emotions than facts and figures...
So blood violence, civil disobedience, adhering the call of Maxine Waters and harassing republicans everywhere you see them is cool then, right? You're still a tolerant people - just as long as those people have the right views?
Also, what do you want? Equal opportunity or equal outcome? Because as best I can tell, nobody is legally restricted from employment, financial, or educational opportunities. Republicans aren't against poor people, they're against dependency. The greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more likely it is that the receiver will develop a sense of entitlement. Also, does it bother you that republicans, on average, volunteer more and donate more towards charities?
Now you're mixing in anecdotal spin about Rep Waters and a third poll on a completely different topic. You're cherry-picking and spinning everything you present.
I think most of us are more moderate than we present ourselves on the internet. Most of us. Here, nobody gives an inch, it is like conceding if we do.
Maybe that’s my problem here. When I talk politics, I try to see both sides and go out of my way to avoid hyperbole.
Taxes are now less progressive when they should be much, much more progressive.Um, no. Taxes are progressive. Rich people always pay more. And as it is, more than 44% of Americans don't even pay taxes.
Good. Nobody should be interested in spending trillions of dollars to lower the global temperature by 0.2 degrees.
lol really? There are 47 Muslim-majority nations. The six countries on the travel ban comprise less than 10% of the Islamic population. You might as well say he has a travel ban on Catholics as well, since Venezuela is also on the list.
It's still not clear whether our President acknowledges climate change as fact at all and he is adding to it at a time when we should be considering drastic steps toward reversing it.
Muslim citizens and legal residents have been negatively affected; families have been separated; it unduly targets a religion.
I think everyone could say the same for you. But here we are. So what makes me different from others that you engage? And what are you trying to accomplish?
You trashed my poll? Are you serious, Clark? It's not my poll, it's the Pew Research Center. And dismissing multiple polls that have WIDE margins indicating conservatives being significantly more tolerant is telling. And not only did you dismiss that poll, you were wildly dramatic and said it was about as helpful as a poll that asked, "should we keep walking?" Like I've said before, you care more about emotions than facts and figures...
So blood violence, civil disobedience, adhering the call of Maxine Waters and harassing republicans everywhere you see them is cool then, right? You're still a tolerant people - just as long as those people have the right views?
Also, what do you want? Equal opportunity or equal outcome? Because as best I can tell, nobody is legally restricted from employment, financial, or educational opportunities. Republicans aren't against poor people, they're against dependency. The greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more likely it is that the receiver will develop a sense of entitlement. Also, does it bother you that republicans, on average, volunteer more and donate more towards charities?
If I bring up a fact-based counterpoint, am I being an over-emotional Lib? Because that seems to be your position. Do the facts I present only count if they're in poll form? Is it not important to provide context for the polls you provided? If one party is in the position where a larger part if its base does not have the spare money or time to donate, does the other party then have the moral and ethical high ground?
Are these your biggest concerns? Taxing the top more, global warming, and muslim citizenship?
Cherry-picking? Dude, this is a message board. Do you want a 7-page presentation? I agree that they are only samples, but I find it significant that there were HUGE gaps between the two parties. You don't like the data? Fine. But If I'm going to believe that liberals are equally or more tolerant of opposing views, please show data to support your argument.
So your issue wasn't that taxes unfairly favored the rich, it's the fact that you don't think they're taxed enough? I agree. I hate that the majority of business owners, investors, and entrepreneurs will now have more to put back into the economy, hire more staff, and devote more effort towards research and development. Crappy economics, if you ask me. We should let the government handle our money. Because, come on. Who handles finances more efficiently?
Also, climate change is not a fact. That is wildly unscientific. Accepting the status-quo is the very abolition of science.
The loony left only cares about taxing the rich more because that is the only way they can come up with to pay for some of the ridiculously expensive proposals they have. Their hearts are nowhere near as big as their desire to have control of the country. That's why they paint conservatives as heartless and racist. They feel that by putting down the opposition they are somehow building themselves up. The childish tactics the House of Representatives are using right now are every bit as embarrassing as Trump has ever been. They're actually making him look like the adult in room.
Historically speaking, that's not what the wealthy do when they get tax breaks. They're also taxed, historically, quite low right now.
When over 90% (probably closer to 99%) of scientists agree that a thing is happening, can we say that thing is happening or is that not enough?
What percent of Democrats would you think the ‘loony left’ represents?
When did he ever present data to counter my points? All he did was dismiss the polls and tell me how the actions of liberals are justified because the status-quo is unacceptable. Feel free to include data and figures. I agree that polls do need context. But, nothing I've read or seen leads me to believe that liberals, on average, are more tolerant. Like I said previously, my perception could be flawed. I openly admitted that. And that's because I only know a few hundred people, and mostly on a superficial level. I don't know millions and millions of individuals to accurately make a definitive statement. But from the sample of the polls I listed, and from my own personal experience, it appears that way to me. I would be interested in a study that had a much broader scope of general tolerance levels.
As far as not having enough money or time to donate, find data to support your argument and I'll certainly give ear to it. I suspect the average income of conservatives is slightly higher, but I doubt it's really significant. As far as free time? I'm less likely to concede there. "I don't have time" is a terrible excuse, honestly. Replace "I don't have time" and say what you really mean: "It's not a priority." I have a full-time job, a wife, two toddlers, a 2-acre yard that needs to be mowed an trimmed every week... yet somehow, somehow I still find time for sports. It's almost like I made it a priority. I don't miss Duke games because it's a priority. If volunteering is important to you, you will prioritize it and find time.
I always contend that you cant ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself. Every conservative I know wants big corporations to pay taxes. Everybody I know has very little problem with a sensibly tiered tax system. Everyone I know wants equal rights for people that follow the law---but they want a reasonable amount of vetting that protects their own rights and safety. In general, people are tired of gov't and other political view telling them how, when, and where to give their time and money. I think middle america is tired of being told to focus on other peoples problems and disregard their own. IMO
I don't think it is that high. It is a rising number, though. I actually only know one Democrat that I would call loony, personally. But he isn't an elected official. Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters and Elizabeth Warren are.
Each side of the spectrum is comprised of people with very different beliefs. Therefore, their biases won’t align. Conservatives might be more tolerant of differing Political views whereas Liberals would be more tolerant of sexual preference. You can’t really box in one side or the other.
As for donations by party, I’d say conservatives give more broadly (think church) whereas the elite rich democrats give more than their counterparts (think Gates and Buffett).
So in reality, you only know one. I don’t know any personally. Just like I don’t know any fringe right wings. The media would have you believe they are everywhere, when in reality, they are the minority of each party.
Warren, Bernie, and Waters are problematic for sure. Only Bernie is a legitimate threat but I don’t think he will come out of the primary. Republicans have the same loons.
Closer to 99%? That's is demonstrably false. Here's what I've written about this subject on the DI board:
That 97% number gets thrown out way too loosely. What is that even referencing? Here is an excerpt from Forbes which goes into more details of this misleading figure.
One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.
Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
"Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol;
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .” —Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.” —Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .” —Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
No one, especially me, disputes climate change exists. The climate is always changing. At one point most of this country was covered in ice. So the climate changes, the ice melted. What nobody, including your 99% of scientists, can prove that man has caused it, or can stop it.
Man can no more stop the climate from changing than we can stop earth quakes, hurricanes, tornados, etc. Show me proof that banning the internal combustion engine, coal, cows,etc will stop climate change.
Here is a fact, the climate has always been changing and always will, nothing man can do about it.
Personally, I am all for going back to the days of horse and wagon, no electricity, no Starbucks, no plastic, etc. Remember this, your smart phone and computer will be useless and you may have to actually do manual labor if you wish to eat.
Thieves are shot on sight, lazy people starve, the weak die off, only the strong survive.
Let’s do this!!!
Each side of the spectrum is comprised of people with very different beliefs. Therefore, their biases won’t align. Conservatives might be more tolerant of differing Political views whereas Liberals would be more tolerant of sexual preference. You can’t really box in one side or the other.
As for donations by party, I’d say conservatives give more broadly (think church) whereas the elite rich democrats give more than their counterparts (think Gates and Buffett).
That's fair. And I believe the tolerance level certainly is more nuanced like you suggested. The polls I listed earlier, however, both asked whether or not you could be friends (or whether it would be a strain on a friendship) if you found out someone had opposing views. I don't like a lot liberal values, but I can still be friends with liberals. Heck, most everyone I work with, all good people, tend to side with democrats. That's okay. I don't want to adopt their ideological values, but I still want to be friends with them. There's goodness inside of everyone, I don't need inflict myself with intentional blindness.
Weren’t your polls a). Comprise of college kids and b). About Trump, not Republicans?
To your first poll, college kids tend to be highly passionate, liberal, and utterly unaware of the real world. They tend to mellow once they leave college and taste what life is like.
To your second poll, Trump is the most polarizing President we’ve had in the modern era. He actively trolls the left and does it well. One of my biggest complaints about Obama was his inability to reach across the aisle and make polarizing comments. Trump is that times 1,000. Me personally, I’m very moderate. I’m a business owner. I have some liberal and conservative stances. I can respect someone who voted for Trump to keep Hilary away. I cannot respect those Trump supporters who are completely blind to his rhetoric and support his every move. Does that make me close-minded or nuanced?
Wait. Are you trying to tell me politicians can't control the tides and the weather itself? I was always told that cash could stop mother nature. Pretty sure she takes credit cards, too.
Why wouldn’t we want to be better stewards of our home? Forget all the scientific evidence for a moment. Do you think we truly don’t have an impact on the environment? If so, I challenge you to sit in your garage with the car running for a few hours. Let’s see how it works out.
Fair enough. I agree that it is mostly the media pumping up the extreme side of each party. But they are definitely out there. I am genuinely curious about the next few elections. Neither side has anyone who actually brings excitement or energy.
What would be ideal is if we could have the government sit down and discuss the things that had positive impacts both economically and socially over the past 20 years from each presidency. Discuss the things that can be improved and get rid of what absolutely won't work. Develop a unilateral policy based off of their findings and actually work with each other and not against each other. But right now it is about my side winning at all costs. Resist, don't compromise. When the opposition has control of congress, they serve as a road block instead of serving for the country. Republicans did it to Obama, Democrats are doing it to Trump. Trump ran on the basis of undoing everything Obama had put in place and the next democratic nominee will run on the basis of undoing everything Trump has put in place. Until we can find a candidate on either side that that truly wants what is best for the country instead of what is best for their party, this will continue to happen and will get progressively worse in time. I will hold my breath.
I previously said I would like to see polls that cover a much wider scope. The other poll was about a friendship being strained because of someone with opposing views supporting Hillary or Trump. 35% of democrats said that would put a strain, only 13% for republicans. These polls aren't definitive facts, obviously. But the gaps are HUGE - I don't think the disparity should be anywhere near a 3 to 1 ratio. And then you see liberals rioting the streets, looting, destroying property, sending death threats, harassing conservatives in a public forum, constant shaming. And that's not to say conservatives don't have similar tactics, it just appears that liberals do it on a much higher level.
What you say about the climate is true in that historically we’ve seen great fluctuations in climate over millions of years. It is a misconception that the earth today is warmer than any point in the history of man. That isn’t true.
What is true is that climate has caused significant changes to the planet, responsible for mass extinctions and shaping the continents. What is also true is that humanity has an impact.
We can hypothesize about the cause and effect of mankind, but I think other than conjecture and speculation, we don’t necessarily know the outcome. It’s not in a nice little simple box.
Likewise, I think we tend to make the assumption that because our little slice of history doesn’t give a whole lot of merit to shifting climate that it can’t happen today. I think as a whole, we are simply ignorant of how easily the climate could end humanity... and not just over thousands of years... over a decade. Data shows it’s happened before.
The government has always operated this way. It’s always been contentious. This is nothing new. In recent years we’ve just had much more coverage and access. The reality is, life is pretty good. We’ve run out of things to fight for. We are a fat and happy nation who happens to be bored. There’s never a been a more prosperous time in our history.
Trump will probably win unless the democrats can solve some internal issues. Then someone like Gavin Newsome will win in 2024.
- Status
Similar threads
