What do Republicans have to do to become relevant again?

[Itisamuh]

You mean thinking for themselves, relying on science rather than belief - that kind of stooping?

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 04:34 PM ----------



You're trying to argue that if more and more people continue to disagree with the Republican Party's platform, it's the people's fault? That's your argument?

My support for conservatism has nothing, at all, to do with anti science. They can, and should, get over that without changing their morality.

And yes, that is exactly what I am saying. They worked just fine in the past, and nothing has changed, short of society changing its standards.

[fengosa]

My support for conservatism has nothing, at all, to do with anti science. They can, and should, get over that without changing their morality.

And yes, that is exactly what I am saying. They worked just fine in the past, and nothing has changed, short of society changing its standards.

Isn't that the point of a democracy? The politicians have to meet the publics standards in order to be elected. The public has changed while to GOP hasn't.

[Crashdummy]

Well, first, they must start recover some of the humanity, stop thinking everything as if they can get a profit out of it or not, stop thinking something is worth it only if it gives money, respect more the rest of the human beings and such.

[Felya]

And yes, that is exactly what I am saying. They worked just fine in the past, and nothing has changed, short of society changing its standards.

They worked in the past, because the Republican Party of the past... Is in the past... When they worked just fine, they were not the antithesis of what their country demands. I agree with Ron Paul and Ayn Rand in their complaints over Reagan and his representation of the Republican Party.

Speaking of the past, the last 5 republican representatives as president were Bush, Bush, Bush, Reagan and Reagan. Which of these were as fiscally conservative as Clinton? The Republican Party of the past is in the past... It died around 30 years ago...

[cutterx2202]

If they want to be taken seriously, Republicans need to push the nutjobs back to the edges of the party and stop letting them run it. People keep saying that the left has crazies too and it does, but they are not the ones you see in important positions or as spokespeople on TV, and when they do appear, the rest of the party distances itself from them.

By contrast, people in the GOP can say the most retarded things and still be given a shot at the presidential nomination (Santorum, Perry, Cain(lol) ), it shows that the party gives credibility to crazy and that's got to stop. I think the best one was when Cain got cheered for saying he would solve immigration by electrifying the fence across the southern border. And they wonder why they can't connect with hispanics when a guy with that level of exposure in the party thinks it's ok to murder anyone attempting to cross.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...-are-shameless
Does anyone distance themself from Pelosi? Nah. Your argument is null.

[cubby]

My support for conservatism has nothing, at all, to do with anti science. They can, and should, get over that without changing their morality.

Regardless, the declining support for the GOP in part is related to their lack of belief in basic scientific principles, among other things. So while you might think it has nothing to do with "anit-science", for the rest of us, it has precisely to do with it.

And yes, that is exactly what I am saying. They worked just fine in the past, and nothing has changed, short of society changing its standards.

Slavery worked just fine in the past - are you saying that we should just stick with that? And yes, it's a valid analogy because times are always changing, and some people just can't handle change. Others find social change refreshing, allowing many people to enjoy freedoms they had not had before.

[pucko97]

Hmm, maybe adopt to the newer generations and maybe be a little more left?

[cutterx2202]

Acknowledging science would be a good start. Hard to vote for a party that doesn't believe in science.

Soooo what science do republicans not "believe in?" Also, didn't know you have to "believe" in science, real science is like logic; it just is. If you have to say you believe in something, then it's not science, it's a theory. Science is in the business of trying to prove theories. It's not fact until proven. At the moment, global warming is a just a belief. Also, saying there's solidarity among global warming scientists is a little like saying cubs fans are cubs fans. They already drank the Kool-aid. A little boy doesn't grow up and become a climate scientist without an agenda - he's out to prove something. It's not a "curiosity" field, but a "tool" field where they're being paid by like-minded people looking to prove something at whatever the cost for a political agenda. They're trying to use science as a political tool, and not conducting real science. A truly curious "climate scientist" would actually be an engineer trying to make everyday consumption more efficient and/or trying to provide alternatives that aren't a joke.

Looking at the larger scientific community has more merit and integrity. Just saying.

[Felya]

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...-are-shameless
Does anyone distance themself from Pelosi? Nah. Your argument is null.

His argument that republicans like Cain wants an electric fence on the border is null, because you started a thread on how much you dislike Pelosi? Great example of what is wrong with Republican Party.

[Endus]

Soooo what science do republicans not "believe in?" Also, didn't know you have to "believe" in science, real science is like logic; it just is. If you have to say you believe in something, then it's not science, it's a theory.

While the first part is true, the final sentence seems to be you setting the field up to claim that scientific "theories" aren't necessarily true, which is a statement that you can only make if you don't understand basic scientific terminology.

Plus;

Science is in the business of trying to prove theories. It's not fact until proven. At the moment, global warming is a just a belief. Also, saying there's solidarity among global warming scientists is a little like saying cubs fans are cubs fans. They already drank the Kool-aid. A little boy doesn't grow up and become a climate scientist without an agenda - he's out to prove something. It's not a "curiosity" field, but a "tool" field where they're being paid by like-minded people looking to prove something at whatever the cost for a political agenda. They're trying to use science as a political tool, and not conducting real science. A truly curious "climate scientist" would actually be an engineer trying to make everyday consumption more efficient and/or trying to provide alternatives that aren't a joke.

Looking at the larger scientific community has more merit and integrity. Just saying.

Here's where you choose to not believe in the science. You were right in the beginning; you don't need to "believe" in science, it just is. If you disbelieve in it, you're just wrong.

And that's the case with you, here. You're doing exactly what you claimed Republicans don't do.

[Felya]

Soooo what science do republicans not "believe in?" Also, didn't know you have to "believe" in science, real science is like logic; it just is. If you have to say you believe in something, then it's not science, it's a theory. Science is in the business of trying to prove theories. It's not fact until proven. At the moment, global warming is a just a belief. Also, saying there's solidarity among global warming scientists is a little like saying cubs fans are cubs fans. They already drank the Kool-aid. A little boy doesn't grow up and become a climate scientist without an agenda - he's out to prove something. It's not a "curiosity" field, but a "tool" field where they're being paid by like-minded people looking to prove something at whatever the cost for a political agenda. They're trying to use science as a political tool, and not conducting real science. A truly curious "climate scientist" would actually be an engineer trying to make everyday consumption more efficient and/or trying to provide alternatives that aren't a joke.

Looking at the larger scientific community has more merit and integrity. Just saying.

It's far worse to create a distinction in real or fake science, than it is to point out a flawed belief. There is no fake science, because it's not science. To even complain that we have scientist to discover a problems, instead of just scientist working on fixing them, is absurd. If the scientist that discovers an issue, never discovers it, how is he supposed to work to fix it?

How much do you think we should pay to give the scientist tools to fix it? Because at this point, you are complaining that they are working on the discovery of the problem instead of fixing it. When the whole issue is refusal to admit there is something we can do to fix it, so there is no money or reach to fix it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Soooo what science do republicans not "believe in?" Also, didn't know you have to "believe" in science, real science is like logic; it just is. If you have to say you believe in something, then it's not science, it's a theory. Science is in the business of trying to prove theories. It's not fact until proven. At the moment, global warming is a just a belief. Also, saying there's solidarity among global warming scientists is a little like saying cubs fans are cubs fans. They already drank the Kool-aid. A little boy doesn't grow up and become a climate scientist without an agenda - he's out to prove something. It's not a "curiosity" field, but a "tool" field where they're being paid by like-minded people looking to prove something at whatever the cost for a political agenda. They're trying to use science as a political tool, and not conducting real science. A truly curious "climate scientist" would actually be an engineer trying to make everyday consumption more efficient and/or trying to provide alternatives that aren't a joke.

Looking at the larger scientific community has more merit and integrity. Just saying.

Saying you believe in global climate change is like saying you believe the earth is round. Your entire post pretty much sums up how the Republican party is anti science. You simply don't understand some basic principles and things such as scientific consensus. Yes, science is an ever evolving and changing field, but there are some things that are nearly universally accepted as true at this point.

They're not called Global Climate Change skeptics, they're called GCC deniers, for a very good reason. At this point it really is just denial.

[Selenti]

Stop being Republicans? That'd be a good start.

[Bakis]

Saw an old rerun of a Family Guy episode today, the fake science is something that Peter referred to as Christian Science

[Frogguh]

You mean thinking for themselves, relying on science rather than belief - that kind of stooping?

You're trying to argue that if more and more people continue to disagree with the Republican Party's platform, it's the people's fault? That's your argument?

Depends on the issue as far as which group ignores science. Examples: I've had liberals flat-out deny that a fetus is a human life, even though everything I've ever learned in biology tells me that it is. Also, the crackdown on weapons that, according to statistics, constitute a tiny fraction of crimes in order to combat gun violence makes little logical sense. Refusing any meaningful reform to Medicare when every analysis shows it's in major trouble isn't conforming to reality, either.

If the Republican Party is right on an issue, and more and more people reject their position on that issue, then that would indeed be the people's fault, and shame on the Republicans if they abandoned the correct position to get more votes. I don't see a problem with that argument as a concept.

[Endus]

Depends on the issue as far as which group ignores science. Examples: I've had liberals flat-out deny that a fetus is a human life, even though everything I've ever learned in biology tells me that it is.

Then you weren't paying attention in biology.

It takes more than human DNA to have something count as a human life.

Also, the crackdown on weapons that, according to statistics, constitute a tiny fraction of crimes in order to combat gun violence makes little logical sense. Refusing any meaningful reform to Medicare when every analysis shows it's in major trouble isn't conforming to reality, either.

On guns; while I don't think the Democrats' approach is necessarily the right one, they're at least willing to discuss the subject, whereas the Republicans are just refusing to come to the table at all. I'll take misguided efforts to improve the state of things over a steadfast refusal to do so.

On Medicare; the Democrats have been trying to reform it. They're the ones who put Obamacare on the table. They were limited in what they could push through and reform by, again, Republican opposition and stonewalling.

If the Republican Party is right on an issue, and more and more people reject their position on that issue, then that would indeed be the people's fault, and shame on the Republicans if they abandoned the correct position to get more votes. I don't see a problem with that argument as a concept.

The US is a democratic republic, and almost none of these issues are objectively "right" or "wrong". So no, under that framework, if more and more of the citizenry reject the Republican platform, they ARE "wrong", and their refusal to adapt their platform to society's changes is the cause, not the people and society that are changing around them.

[cubby]

Depends on the issue as far as which group ignores science. Examples: I've had liberals flat-out deny that a fetus is a human life, even though everything I've ever learned in biology tells me that it is. Also, the crackdown on weapons that, according to statistics, constitute a tiny fraction of crimes in order to combat gun violence makes little logical sense. Refusing any meaningful reform to Medicare when every analysis shows it's in major trouble isn't conforming to reality, either.

Your examples, while VERY in the political debate (I for one was shocked at the low number of gun crimes caused by assault weapons - turned my view point right around), demonstrate the difference between social science and hard science (political science vs biology, for example). All of your examples are extremely valid and topical, but they are up for debate. Gravity is not.

If the Republican Party is right on an issue, and more and more people reject their position on that issue, then that would indeed be the people's fault, and shame on the Republicans if they abandoned the correct position to get more votes. I don't see a problem with that argument as a concept.

But what makes the Republican Party "right" on an issue?

[cutterx2202]

And that's the case with you, here. You're doing exactly what you claimed Republicans don't do.

Umm...where? Are you putting words into my mouth?

That rant is not science and I'm not portraying it as science. It's just my deductive reasoning - the larger poll is a better representation of how scientists view the issue than the individuals already committed to it.

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 05:27 PM ----------

How much do you think we should pay to give the scientist tools to fix it? Because at this point, you are complaining that they are working on the discovery of the problem instead of fixing it. When the whole issue is refusal to admit there is something we can do to fix it, so there is no money or reach to fix it.

What I'm pointing out is this: how much time and effort has been spent trying to make a problem out of something when there was no premise to believe there was one in the first place. There's a fine line between being curious (Hey, does man affect the climate?) and a political tool (I must prove something even if nothing is there).

[Bakis]

Umm...where? Are you putting words into my mouth?

That rant is not science and I'm not portraying it as science. It's just my deductive reasoning - the larger poll is a better representation of how scientists view the issue than the individuals already committed to it.

Well you specifically do not believe in it but you try to hide it behind "it is just a belief, the jury is still out there".
There are an overwhelming majority of consensus on the subject. You are really too late to play this card:
-"There are not enough research done and there are too few scientists supporting it", which is ~ what you wrote.

So yes you deny the science.

[cmennare]

Drop the religous BS. Champion many of the Libertarian ideals. True freedoms from the government, keep them out of the bedrooms, schools, and minimize the governments impact on the workplace. Secure our borders and defend us from actual attacks, not pre-emptive strikes on people that may have the technology in 50 years. Close our bases around the world and bring our troops home. We can use them here to keep us safe or we can use them for infrastructure building. Cut the military spending for everything over-seas and drop costly unproven programs. Funnel savings there to pay down our debt so that our future generations are no longer hamstrung.

This would be a nice start