Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

Fine. . .keep the name "Republican." Your venomous attitude toward Flake & McCain are very "Trumpian."

 

I didnt know you were so attached to mccain and flake

 

That’s ridiculous. What is the source of this drivel. When did the R’s invent Obamacare ?? Obamanomics (which includes ObamaCare) did great economic regressive harm to the US. R’s acted to reduce this harm.

 

I wasn't. I'm far too liberal to agree with either of them politically, but I respect both of them for caring more for their country than their personal conformity with more extreme Republicans.

 

How did they care more for their country than other Republicans ??

 

I think mccain was just pissed that trump disrespected his military service

It was all about mccain not issues

 

Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) was based a Republican healthcare plan designed by them during 1993-1994. Talks began with that plan as the basic plan in Senate committee meetings in 2009, with some Republican support in the beginning. But when then Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell threatened those Republicans actively trying to work with the Obama team with negative repercussions if they continued, all of them relented and gradually dropped their support over several months. Under McConnell's leadership, Republicans became increasingly hostile to both the ACA & Obama himself. It never stopped.

 

In John McCain's case, voting the deciding vote in the Senate rejecting the repeal of the Affordable Care Act because that repeal would leave millions of Americans without a replacement plan for medical care access, plus it would remove the federal requirement for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. McCain went against his own party to bravely and honorably vote against that repeal.

Jeff Flake kept faith with the time honored process of having the Senate Judicial Committee investigate the backgrounds of Presidential nominees. After the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, Flake insisted on extending that investigation. Whether Kavanaugh was guilty or not isn't the issue. Whether he was treated the same as any other nominee would have been is the issue. While I disagree with Flake on almost every issue, I respect his courage & determination on following protocol here.

 

I think that's a bit harsh. I agree McCain was pissed about the military issue, but I also think he cared about about dropping millions of Americans off healthcare access with no alternative Republican plan to care for them. Regardless whether he did it for humanitarian reasons or selfish ones, it was still the right thing to do, and he deserves credit for doing it.

 

McCain spent 8 years voting to repeal ObamaCare

 

I did answer the question. It was just a bad question, "You really think that is worth potentially disenfranchising thousands of totally innocent people?"

How are people being disenfranchised? Who are the victims? What are there stories?

 

They're being denied the right to vote for ridiculous, silly and picayune reasons, most of which have nothing to do with voter fraud and are aimed at minority voters. In Georgia, hundreds of people were being denied the right to vote because of a misplaced comma in a document having nothing to do with voting. Like I said, it's a problem affecting less than one one hundredths of one percent of votes. It's beyond absurd to say it's a problem and somewhat obviously an attempt to suppress non-republican voting.

 

I'm going to respond to your post in segments. Part 1:
1. I'm a liberal, and based on the many posts by conservatives brandishing their version of what liberals think or are like, I'd have to disagree with your conclusion that conservatives understand liberals better than the reverse. I've admitted on this forum my own inability to fathom conservative thinking, but I've see little to no evidence that conservatives are any better at understanding liberals. Truthfully, I think both sides are oblivious to the other, and I'm saddened by that truth.

2. You are denying the accuracy of a former forum post that said conservatives are highly motivated by issues of security. Yet, here in your post you seem to verify that former post's accuracy. Under the umbrella title of "freedom," you list the prime issues conservatives care about without noticing every one of them involve concerns related to personal SECURITY. You list "strong military, gun rights, police, border agents & stiff prison sentences for criminals"--ALL RELATED TO PERSONAL SECURITY ISSUES. So, based on YOUR post, I conclude the post you're challenging was correct.

3. You say "Christians don't seek to impose their views of morality on the rest of us." One example will serve to negate that claim. You say conservatives strongly support personal freedom. You define "freedom" thru security. I define "freedom" thru choice. In the issue of abortion, the Pro-Choice side says until the fetus is viable (capable of self-sustained life), the mother should have the freedom to make the decision for or against abortion based on her particular circumstances, and how they affect her life. Pro-Choice supports the freedom of the individual mother to make choices for herself based on how those choices affect her life. Pro-Life supporters base their position primarily on religious beliefs. But instead of respecting the individual freedom of the mother, they work hard to impose their views onto everyone by passing laws to restrict abortion completely regardless of circumstances. Abortion isn't the only issue conservatives act in this manner about. So, I feel liberals are much more in tune with saving and respecting personal freedoms than conservatives are. I'd also challenge your conclusions that atheists are less moral than religious people because their values come from nowhere. I am not religious, but I share most of my personal values with those from Christianity & Buddhism generally, and feel no one, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, should be regarded as "less" because of their religious views. That's supposed to be part of our American values system. It's called "freedom" of religion.

 

I have had the debate of "who is more authoritarian" with Progressive many times and abortion is the only thing they ever bring up. If abortion rights are the only authoritarian thing you can find coming from the Right that is a pretty open and shut case.

You did say "abortion isn't the only issue conservatives act..." so I would love to hear more examples. But from what I see of the evidence Progressives are far more authoritarian in principle as they demand you agree with them.

 

Usually, if these are serious issues rather than activist brought up nonsense, there will be aggrieved parties either complaining or suing about the issue. That's why I asked, who are the victims? What are the stories?

 

That is ridiculous. ObamaCare had nothing to do with Stuart Butler’s response to HillaryCare. ObamaCare is a disaster and was responsible in part for the dismal Obamanomics performance.

 

True liberals seek the truth. You are not a true liberal.

 

Where do you get this garbage from. McCain voted not to repeal the individual mandate. Flake is a anti Trumper who knew he wouldn’t be re-elected. It took no courage to do what he did.

 

Good point.

 

As a practicing liberal, I find authoritarianism repellent. To me, Trump is a total authoritarian; but in the Congress, I think Mitch McConnell is also. To cite an example, as you requested. Look at the way McConnell handled the last Supreme Court nominees from both Obama & Trump. It's quite a contrast. McConnell is like a petty dictator in the Senate, and whatever he says goes. For Obama's last Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, McConnell drafted a policy of complete obstructionism, and forced his Senate Republicans to adhere to that policy under threat. Garland was treated worse than any Supreme Court nominee in my lifetime. He was ignored completely by Republican Senators. And the thing that rubs me the most was that Obama intentionally selected a nominee he felt would be acceptable to Republicans, for the good it did him. McConnell was extremely autocratic during this process.

During the Senate hearings for Trump's last Supreme Court nominee, McConnell the autocrat surged forth again, this time cutting corners and shifting policies any way he could to streamline Kavanaugh's approval in spite of serious questions about his personal past. From a liberal's point of view, both of these events showed conservative willingness to bend or break the rules and tradition, as if they mattered not, just to get their way. They never made any attempt to work with or even ask for the opinion of Democrats. Both were solid examples of conservative "my way or the highway" rule. If that's not authoritarianism, then what is?

 

You are trying to give examples of Democrats demanding something, then being rebuked by the political process, as authoritarianism. That is politics, you seem to be under the impression that not getting your way is authoritarian.

Not being able to control your decisions, is authoritarianism

To try to say obstructionism is authoritarianism is complete nonsense.

Also, you are kinda ignorant of our history in trying to act like this is something new. One recent example is Miguel Estrada who was nominated by Republicans to the Appeals court.

Democrats blocked him, saying he was too conservative. Based on your definition, Democrats were being authoritarian, see how dumb that sounds?

Meanwhile:

"Leaked internal memos to Democratic Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court partially because "he is Latino," and because of his potential to be a future Supreme Court nominee.[6] A spokesman for Durbin said that "no one intended racist remarks against Estrada" and that the memo only meant to highlight that Estrada was "politically dangerous" because Democrats knew he would be an "attractive candidate" that would be difficult to contest since he didn't have any record.[6]Democrats argued that Estrada had extreme right-wing views, although others pointed to Estrada's difference with some conservatives on Commerce Clause issues."

So they were demanding he not be put through, because they wanted to be the first to nominate a Hispanic. Again, based on your definition, this is authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism is control, right now Progressives want to control FAR more things than Republicans and I think you having to change the definition of authoritarianism proves that to be true.

Had this discussion with dozens of people, the only one that ever comes up is abortion which is the same thing that is happening here.

 

McConnel implemented the Biden Rule. Garland would not have been approved. But by not voting on him McConnel set up Hillary to continue his nomination when she became President. Of course she didn’t and BTW she would have pulled Garland’s nomination and replaced him with a much farther leftie like Kagan, Sotomayor, or Ginsburg.

Your comments on Kavanaguh are disgusting.

 

I never cease to be amazed by conservatives inability or unwillingness to see the positive aspects of Obama's tenure over economics. Throughout the past two years, I've repeatedly seen them attack Obama & praise Trump for their different economic approaches. Just in the past month, there have been repeated praises of Trump's economics & his success in job creation. Yet, the facts reveal something quite astounding. In the 21 months since Trump has been President, 4,057,000+ new jobs were opened. In the last 21 months of Obama's tenure in office, 4, 477,000+ new jobs were opened. I never heard anyone praising Obama's success, anywhere, ever. But Trump gets all the applause. Yet, Obama's 21 month record surpasses Trump's 21 month record on job creation. Couldn't we make better voting decisions if these real facts were out there for us to digest?

I don't know all the details on the Hillarycare/Obamacare history, but I do know Obama was seeking Republican support and began the discussions with the senate committees using that Republican Hillary generation healthcare program as a beginning point for discussion. Republicans conveniently forget that truth.

 

What makes you think so?

 

Truth can have many sides, and all be valid. Sometimes we create a world view including only those truths we like. But that doesn't eliminate the validity of the truths we feel uncomfortable with. This is true for all of us.