Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

Is the standard that you have to know someone personally?

Cincinnati poll worker charged with voting half dozen times in November

People Who Vote Twice

147 suspected of “double voting” in North Carolina and Florida

 

He didn't get us involved in a full on war in Syria, despite being under enormous pressure to do so. That was a relief.

 

Obama had an obstructionist Republican Congress working against him. Trump doesn't. That's a huge difference.

 

So did trump

 

Have you ever heard of an example that could have changed the outcome of that election?

 

You’re kidding, right ??

 

Read Fund and von Spakovsky’s books on the subject.

 

No, you got it backwards.

Scientific method moves TO theory. Theory is the very best, most backed by evidence answer to how something (like climate) works.

The vast majority of climate scientists agree with human activity increasing the average temperature of earth - through fossil fuel use, etc.

 

How do you conclude that? Under Trump both houses of Congress are under Republican control.

 

Read the Constitution. Power is divided. The President can't do everything. Congress controls the money & passes laws. The President controls only money approved by Congress for the Executive Branch. Hopefully, Trump is going the route of Obama--losing Congress after two years. Then we'll see how much he accomplishes. Perhaps about what he bitched & complained about Obama accomplishing. Less, I hope.

 

Republican control often mean anti trump swamp rats

Not to mention repub anti trumpsters like jeff flake and lisa “the bitch” murkowski

 

Sixty Senate votes are needed to accomplish anything. The D lemmings in the Senate refuse to compromise for the good of the American people.

 

Sure, the Dornan-Sanchez race, and the Franken-Coleman race. Although any race that's real close, that's liable to be decided by a slim margin, is open to be looked at.

 

And of course the Gore vs 43 Presidential race in which there is evidence of voter fraud.

 

There are approximately 7million registered voters in NC and 13 million in FL. About 20 million all told

10 million really as only half vote

let's allow that it's actually 500 miscreants, since some weren't caught

That is .0050%

You really think that is worth potentially disenfranchising thousands of totally innocent people? I really think the standard should be at least one ONE HUNDREDTH OF ONE PERCENT, don't you?

 

Name one person who has ever been disenfranchised.

 

You've been terribly misled if you think that helped you understand conservatives. That's the liberal view of conservatism, but it's not at all what conservatives think or what motivates them. It's truly bizarre, but the reality is that conservatives understand liberals but liberals don't understand conservatives at all.

False. What drives conservatives is the desire for liberty, both from government and from criminals. Securing liberty requires a strong military, gun rights, police, border agents, and stiff prison sentences for criminals. My grandfather made an interesting observation down in Miami, where criminals had free rein for many years: he said the politicians won't lock up the criminals, so the law-abiding have to lock themselves in their own personal prisons to keep the criminals out. Freedom requires locking up the outlaws.

False. Christians don't "seek to impose their views of morality on the rest of us," Christians seek to have their society reflect their values. Funnily enough, so do left-wing atheists, but instead of characterizing themselves as "seeking to impose their views of morality on the rest of us," they characterize it as something else. But the same principle applies. Atheists like to pretend that Christians' values are somehow less important or less relevant because they originate from religion (and I could argue that the reverse is true, that people choose their religion based on their values and not vice versa, but I'll leave that for another day), but since atheists' values don't originate from anything, they are the ones who really should be taken less seriously. All they have is an opinion.

False. Christians by and large agree that they are not in control, God is. As for the science aspect, most Christians accept the opinions of science given sufficient age for them to have been verified. It's only when "science" says something new that Christians get skeptical. And for good reason. Back in the 1970s, it was global cooling that was going to kill us all, and the earth was spiraling into a new ice age. Didn't happen. For the last fifty years, science has been telling us that eggs are good for us, then that eggs are bad for us, and at latest report, that eggs actually don't have much impact on body cholesterol. That fat is good for us, that fat is bad for us, and now that "bad fat" is bad for us, whatever that is. "Science" is not fixed in stone the moment some scientist says something. The scientists who told us that the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate won the Nobel prize for their efforts. Now new data suggests that they were wrong. So there's plenty of reason to be highly skeptical of the claims of "science". Furthermore, conservatives in general become highly skeptical when liberals try to use the claims of science to further their own political agenda, pushing for socialistic or even fascistic control over the economy. It's not skepticism towards science, it's skepticism towards liberals. Just because "something" is happening is a) not a reason "we must do something," and b) not a reason "we must do this." Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And then liberals cry, "Why do you deny science?" We don't deny science, we deny you.

Liberals have a strange relationship with science. When science agrees with their agenda, it's great and wonderful, but when it doesn't, it must be suppressed in the name of equality and fairness. Tell a conservative that the earth is getting warmer and humans are responsible and he will argue with you. Tell a liberal that blacks commit 50% of all the crime in the US while only constituting 14% of the population and he will try to silence you with shouts of "racist!" Tell a Christian that humans evolved from apes and he may argue with you. Tell an atheist there are no intermediate life forms between one celled creatures and complex multicellular organisms, or that it appears that eukaryotes may have developed before prokaryotes, and he will dismiss you as a kook. (Both are true, by the way.)

Finally, I wanted to say something about the difference between liberty and license. Conservatives are in favor of liberty, liberals are in favor of license. What's the difference? Morality. Conservatives want the freedom to engage in all those activities that are moral. Liberals want the "freedom" to engage in all those activities that are immoral. And in fact, they don't want any distinction made between those activities that are moral and immoral because they don't like being judged as immoral. What do conservatives consider freedom? The right to live where you want, work as you want, engage in business as you want, make money as you want, drive what you want. What do liberals consider freedom? The "right" to smoke marijuana, take dicks up your ass, sell your body for money, and exterminate your baby in the womb. The first are moral activities, the second are immoral activities. The first set constitute liberty, the second set license.

Here's one leftie having something to say about science, and a second leftie silencing someone who actually agrees with science:

 

Assumes RW factoids with zero credible substantiation!

 

Yes it is a popular theory. No doubt about it.

 

I don't think "disenfranchising thousands of totally innocent people" is even on the drawing board.

 

input error, reboot

 

Answer the QUESTION please, Christ, you're as bad as me.

 

So, should the former "Republican" party now be called the new "Trump" party? I know the old, open Republican party has been shedding liberals & moderates gradually, over time, and focusing more and more on ever more extreme conservatism. Trump seems almost a non-conformist with any political philosophy, but very strongly focused on anything he regards as personally beneficial to himself or his family--even at the expense of the nation as a whole. Now, he is actively pushing away any and all "Republicans" who he feels don't support him or demonstrate enough loyalty to him personally. Jeff Flake & John McCain are examples victimized by Trump's manic focus on himself, as well as that same cult-like personality obsession to him by his extremist followers. Trump & his supporters exude that same negative energy that often empowers history's worst tyrants. From my perspective, it's un-American.

 

Obama was stuck for six of his eight years with a fanatical, obstructionist Republican Congress that absolutely refused to work with him on anything. They even abandoned plans they had invented themselves once Obama accepted those plans in an effort to get their support. The Affordable Care Act being a prime example. If you want to blame Democrats for failure to cooperate, at least be honest enough to recognize the destructive tactics used by Republicans during the Obama years, and have some understanding & sympathy for the impact that had on today's politics.

 

No

Trump played by the rules and won the REPUBLICAN nomination in 2016

Then he won the election as a republican and single-handedly delivered the white house to the GOP which had been ready to concede the office to hillary

As for the two washington swamp rats you mentioned mccain died and flake ran away from the fight and retired

Trump owes them nothing