achilles return

us politics and elections thread

3,000 posts in this topic

51 minutes ago, (((Billy Ocean))) said:

 

 

 

It's not only time to flush out the likes of Feinstein, Pelosi, Boxer, and Brown, but we could also go line by line to each California elected official.  What a mess that state is in.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

You:

Me, an intellectual:

DWqDsqlXkAUMShx.jpg

Actually historically speaking during this time of year, the party in power usually makes a comeback in the generic ballot but is then quickly lost. 

This is not your grandma's politics, this is different, Trump is different.  Don't be shocked if his doesn't repeat itself in this POTUS first two years at the midterm.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

This is not your grandma's politics, this is different, Trump is different.  Don't be shocked if his doesn't repeat itself in this POTUS fist two years at the midterm.  

 

Sancho and AF89 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ermmm....

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/02/poll-gop-majority-wants-christianity-as-national-religion/

Quote

GOP dreams of Christian theocracy: A majority of Republicans favor establishing Christianity as the national religion according to a disturbing new poll released today by Public Policy Polling (PPP).

The new poll found 57 percent of Republicans say they favor establishing Christianity as a national religion, while only 30 percent oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion. 13 percent said they were unsure.

The poll results also show a majority of Republicans (66%) do not believe in global warming, and that about half (49%) of Republicans deny the reality of biological evolution.

The results are deeply disappointing, if not all that surprising. As Wonkette so eloquently points out:

SHOCKING New Poll Shows Majority Of GOP Total Idiots

Republicans in favor of establishing Christianity as a national religion are either ignoring, or simply ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause which prohibits the establishment of a national religion.

The Establishment Clause is that part of the First Amendment that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

The Establishment Clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another, or one religion over no religion.

 

However, within the Republican party there is a radical right wing movement of Christian extremists attempting to pervert and rewrite the fabric of American history and culture, even if that means desecrating the U.S. Constitution.

 

The new poll results serve to reinforce the notion that the Christian base of the Republican party continues to advance the dangerous cause of Christian nationalism, the belief that America is a Christian nation.

In fact, the new poll demonstrates there is a strong desire by many Republicans to replace the cherished secular values upon which this nation was founded with a Christian theocracy.

 

Screw you GOP! Not all of us believe in your imaginary sky fairy, nor do we have any interest in being treated as 2nd class citizens because of it, as is our Constitutionally protected right. You would think a group that mostly claims they are conservative because they are "Constitutionally conservative" would have a better grasp about the actual freakin' Constitution.

They don't understand the Constitution; 66% reject the conclusion of 97% of our best scientists regarding climate change; and 49% reject the fact of biological evolution. It really is the party of the stupid and ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RandomFan said:

It really is the party of the stupid and ignorant.

 

3 hours ago, HMFIC said:

Geez ! talk about stupid !  Last time I looked , climate change was not mentioned in the Constitution.  Another wild eyed lefty with delusions of grandeur.  Anyone can selectively post the Poll of their choice and declare it to be gospel.  The Poll you cite is nothing more that leftist talking points, and is hilarious, as are you. 

Case in point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You:

23 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

This is not your grandma's politics, this is different, Trump is different.  Don't be shocked if his doesn't repeat itself in this POTUS first two years at the midterm.  

Me, an intellectual:

Also, Bush and Clinton both had midterms where their party gained seats, so Trump wouldn't be different, BUT both Clinton and Bush were extremely popular when they did it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

You:

Me, an intellectual:

Also, Bush and Clinton both had midterms where their party gained seats, so Trump wouldn't be different, BUT both Clinton and Bush were extremely popular when they did it. 

Trump is more popular than the msm/scm/fake media would have you believe.  

I believe Rasmussen has him at 50% ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Trump is more popular than the msm/scm/fake media would have you believe.  

I believe Rasmussen has him at 50% ? 

I said they were popular. 50% is not popular. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HMFIC said:

BREAKING NEWS   !!!

CNN and MSNBC are NOT independent news orgs. They are merely mouthpieces for far left wing talking points.

there's nothing wrong with either organization's polling. just as there is nothing wrong with fox's polling. you can't dismiss the results of scientific polling merely because the results make you uncomfortable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 11:41 PM, RandomFan said:

They don't understand the Constitution; 66% reject the conclusion of 97% of our best scientists regarding climate change; and 49% reject the fact of biological evolution. It really is the party of the stupid and ignorant.

1

Let's talk about which party believes in the existence of the patriarchy, wage gap, and recognizes a thousand different genders...

on the scale of ignorant and stupid, I will take the guy asking for actual SCIENTIFIC evidence instead of consensus (not science) as more reasonable, especially when talking about theories. 

Edited by Doozer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, (((Billy Ocean))) said:

 

“After watching the video, it was clearly intended as a joke, but it was in very poor taste and rooted in a lack of knowledge about the history of the political left,” Carter said Monday evening.

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/general-assembly/democratic-lawmaker-in-virginia-holds-hammer-and-sickle-image-behind/article_f3fa7b6a-6cc8-59b2-a9ab-f90116ffd4cf.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doozer said:

Let's talk about which party believes in the existence of the patriarchy, wage gap, and recognizes a thousand different genders...

on the scale of ignorant and stupid, I will take the guy asking for actual SCIENTIFIC evidence instead of consensus (not science) as more reasonable, especially when talking about theories. 

Way to hit on those MRA talking points in your first sentence. I'm sure The Slyme Pit would be proud. BTW, not acknowledging those realities is another prime example of being ignorant and stupid, so thanks for reinforcing that.

Your second sentence, oy vey! You almost hit the scientific illiteracy bingo. Since when is scientific consensus not based on scientific evidence? :lol:

Quote

The authors looked through the abstracts of 11,944 papers on climate change published from 1991 through 2011, and found only 78 (0.7 percent) that clearly rejected man-made global warming and 40 (0.3 percent) that expressed uncertainty about it. So only 1 percent of published climate abstracts from 1991 to 2011 explicitly questioned the notion that humans are warming the climate. Geologist James Lawrence Powell did a similar if less painstaking examination of the abstracts of 24,210 peer-reviewed climate papers published in 2013 and 2014 and found only five (0.021 percent) that "in my judgment explicitly rejected AGW."

I see that decline in the percentage of AGW-rejecting papers as evidence that scientific doubt about climate change and the human role in it has receded as more evidence has been compiled. If you are so inclined, you might choose to see it instead as evidence of groupthink and peer pressure silencing scientific mavericks. That's a contentious interpretation, but it's not entirely nonsensical. What is entirely nonsensical? Claiming that more than a vanishingly small percentage of active climate scientists argue that human activity isn't warming the climate.

It's clear you understand very little about the scientific method, it's conclusions, or how to interpret scientific language; anytime I see someone tossing around the "theory" word in a negative connotation, it's a dead giveaway. Theory in everyday layman's terms has a very different meaning than when used in scientific terms. It's not a guess.

Quote

The word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

The Law of Gravity describes "what" happens; the Theory of Gravity, which includes the Law of Gravity among it's many other pieces of evidence from scientific experiments, is the description of "how" Gravity works. It consists of many individual experiments that make up small parts of the whole puzzle; and each new part of the puzzle that is added strengthens our understanding of how gravity works and our conviction in the Theory. Any piece of viable evidence that contradicts the theory would cause the entire thing to collapse and scientists would have to start from scratch.

Just like evolution, which has more evidentiary support than any other theory in existence. It's easy to guess why it has more evidentiary support than any other theory -- because it's been the most controversial theory. It's been the most tested, the most attempts to discredit it which ultimately has led to more and more evidence actually supporting it. Not one single piece of viable evidence has ever been produced that would contradict the Theory of Evolution. It's the thing in science we are most certain about. The entire modern medical profession exists only because we assume biology is true, which is wholly based on the Theory of Evolution.

And yet scientifically illiterate nimrods such as 49% of the GOP continue to get this wrong. The party of the ignorant and stupid, indeed.

Edited by RandomFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RandomFan said:

Your second sentence, oy vey! You almost hit the scientific illiteracy bingo. Since when is scientific consensus not based on scientific evidence? :lol:

 

You should put this sentence as your signature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we all just take a second and enjoy RF's long rant about all the crazy stuff in his "reality", while spouting the ignorance of others. 

Who spends that much time trying to explain the meaning of "theory" without knowing the scientific irrelevance of a "consensus"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Doozer said:

Can we all just take a second and enjoy RF's long rant about all the crazy stuff in his "reality", while spouting the ignorance of others. 

Who spends that much time trying to explain the meaning of "theory" without knowing the scientific irrelevance of a "consensus"?

 

I'm quite certain you are too ignorant to understand the concepts being discussed, but I'm feeling generous at the moment so I'll entertain your idiocy for one more response -- it's so nonsensical I'm still unsure if what you are trying to suggest is that scientific consensus is somehow scientifically irrelevant. If that is what you are trying to say, then that is a whopper of a claim and will need some substantial evidenntiary support: which I can assure you does not exist. That claim is utter nonsense; if what you are claiming is something else, then please elaborate.

Actually, nevermind. Just typing that paragraph out used up any generous feeling I had towards correcting your ignorance. I'll leave you with a definition of what scientific consensus actually is and why it's obviously not irrelevant in a scientific discussion; and, as usual, a reminder that the GOP is the party of the ignorant and stupid -- as you continue to demonstrate.

Quote

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.

EDIT:  If my brief previous post constitutes a "long rant" to you, then I'm not surprised at your ignorance. If it's that challenging for you to read something that should take 60 seconds or less, then perhaps you might want to address that issue before commenting in the future. I'm sorry that some of us don't gain our wisdom from bumper sticker slogans.

Edited by RandomFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now