Change coming?

rwguinn

Penultimate Amazing
rwguinn
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
11,098
Location
16 miles from 7 lakes
Parker County Texas has blown it's current Republican Leadership completely out of the water, by a very nearly 3 to 1 margin. The incumbent chair was Tea party hardcore, and even funded a PAC to campaign for her hand-picked precinct chairs (most of whom also lost) despite guidelines that chairs remain neutral between candidates. The new chair ran on a platform of "The Republican Party has abandoned its principles"
This could be the start of something
 
rwguinn said:
Parker County Texas has blown it's current Republican Leadership completely out of the water, by a very nearly 3 to 1 margin. The incumbent chair was Tea party hardcore, and even funded a PAC to campaign for her hand-picked precinct chairs (most of whom also lost) despite guidelines that chairs remain neutral between candidates. The new chair ran on a platform of "The Republican Party has abandoned its principles"
This could be the start of something
Click to expand...

The real Republican Party sold it's soul to religious nuts around 1980. The republicker party is at least 80 per cent of what is here now calling itself Republican. We need real Republicans to take it back.
 
fuelair said:
The real Republican Party sold it's soul to religious nuts around 1980. The republicker party is at least 80 per cent of what is here now calling itself Republican. We need real Republicans to take it back.
Click to expand...
Some of us are working on it. Now if the Democratic Party will work on the dumbocrats, become less condescending, and use their obviously superior intellect to see that not everybody who disagrees with them is stupid, that there might be other points of view that are valid, we could get back to civil discourse.
I ain't holding my breath, because the stupocrats can kill this and themselves in the bud-- and probably will
 
rwguinn said:
Some of us are working on it. Now if the Democratic Party will work on the dumbocrats, become less condescending, and use their obviously superior intellect to see that not everybody who disagrees with them is stupid, that there might be other points of view that are valid, we could get back to civil discourse.
I ain't holding my breath, because the stupocrats can kill this and themselves in the bud-- and probably will
Click to expand...
Well, fuelair's rhetoric definitely gets them off to a good start.
 
rwguinn said:
Some of us are working on it. Now if the Democratic Party will work on the dumbocrats, become less condescending, and use their obviously superior intellect to see that not everybody who disagrees with them is stupid, that there might be other points of view that are valid, we could get back to civil discourse.
I ain't holding my breath, because the stupocrats can kill this and themselves in the bud-- and probably will
Click to expand...

There are certain issues where both sides pretend there isn't nuance and context to the arguments being made.

At the same time there are a lot of people who are willfully ignorant, refuse to accept factual information, and instead just constantly repeat things that are flat out wrong. What then? It's nice to pretend everyones view has merit and we all just need to be respectful and listen and get along but reality doesn't always work that way.
 
The_Animus said:
There are certain issues where both sides pretend there isn't nuance and context to the arguments being made.

At the same time there are a lot of people who are willfully ignorant, refuse to accept factual information, and instead just constantly repeat things that are flat out wrong. What then? It's nice to pretend everyones view has merit and we all just need to be respectful and listen and get along but reality doesn't always work that way.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I loathe the idea that both sides of an argument deserve equal time and respect. There are several issues where Republicans are just wrong. Why does someone who wants to teach creationism in schools deserve the same treatment as someone who wants to teach science?
 
rustypouch said:
Indeed. I loathe the idea that both sides of an argument deserve equal time and respect. There are several issues where Republicans are just wrong. Why does someone who wants to teach creationism in schools deserve the same treatment as someone who wants to teach science?
Click to expand...

That's fine when discussing science but when we get into morality it's a bit more tricky.
 
rustypouch said:
Indeed. I loathe the idea that both sides of an argument deserve equal time and respect. There are several issues where Republicans are just wrong. Why does someone who wants to teach creationism in schools deserve the same treatment as someone who wants to teach science?
Click to expand...
In short, they don't and won't, at least from me. Conversely, why should someone who believes GMO is poison, that all "Big" whatever is out to kill everybody ( while owning stock in "big" whatever), and that have eggs up the vagina and other crystals have healing power have any say in anything, either?
 
rwguinn said:
Some of us are working on it. Now if the Democratic Party will work on the dumbocrats, become less condescending, and use their obviously superior intellect to see that not everybody who disagrees with them is stupid, that there might be other points of view that are valid, we could get back to civil discourse.
I ain't holding my breath, because the stupocrats can kill this and themselves in the bud-- and probably will
Click to expand...

I appreciate your efforts to highlight the silly name calling done by others here through mimicry. I just beg you don't make a habit of it.
 
rwguinn said:
Parker County Texas has blown it's current Republican Leadership completely out of the water, by a very nearly 3 to 1 margin. The incumbent chair was Tea party hardcore, and even funded a PAC to campaign for her hand-picked precinct chairs (most of whom also lost) despite guidelines that chairs remain neutral between candidates. The new chair ran on a platform of "The Republican Party has abandoned its principles"
This could be the start of something
Click to expand...

I wasn't paying attention over here on the other side of Arlington, did Trump's steel tariff have anything to do with this? I know there are lots of oilfield related jobs out there that could feel the impact quite directly.
 
Made a change. Just to add a wee bit of perspective shift.
rustypouch said:
Indeed. I loathe the idea that both sides of an argument deserve equal time and respect. There are several issues where RepublicansDemocrats are just wrong. Why does someone who wants to teach creationism in schoolsnuclear power is more harmful to the environment than coal deserve the same treatment as someone who wants to teach science?
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Keith said:
I wasn't paying attention over here on the other side of Arlington, did Trump's steel tariff have anything to do with this? I know there are lots of oilfield related jobs out there that could feel the impact quite directly.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. They still love Trump over here, along with the Flag, The 2nd Amendment, and the Military.
The Country and The People, not so much...
 
rwguinn said:
In short, they don't and won't, at least from me. Conversely, why should someone who believes GMO is poison, that all "Big" whatever is out to kill everybody ( while owning stock in "big" whatever), and that have eggs up the vagina and other crystals have healing power have any say in anything, either?
Click to expand...

There are some on the left who believe those things. But they still aren't equal. Conservatives are more likely to believe fake news and crackpot conspiracies, and to dismiss actual facts as fake news than liberals. There are studies showing this.

Republican politicians and the party itself tend to adopt these positions more often than Democratic politicians/party.

Like I said, I agree that there are issues where both sides have legitimate arguments that are too often ignored and they need to listen to one another and have better civil discourse.

But when the person, or party (either one), or whatever group, holds a blatantly wrong belief, refuses to acknowledge factual information showing it is wrong and works to enact nationwide policies which will cause harm based on this wrong belief... what then?
 
This needs to be its own thread, but...

Belz... said:
That's fine when discussing science but when we get into morality it's a bit more tricky.
Click to expand...


There is no practical difference between disagreement on science and disagreement on morality. I'm just as confident in my beliefs that global warming is real and that homosexuality is not a sin as someone else is in their beliefs that global warming is not real and that homosexuality is a sin.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
This needs to be its own thread, but...




There is no practical difference between disagreement on science and disagreement on morality. I'm just as confident in my beliefs that global warming is real and that homosexuality is not as sin as someone else is in their beliefs that global warming is not real and that homosexuality is a sin.
Click to expand...

Very good and accurate point. Inadequately trained and informed persons should not be allowed to vote on science issues. (Of course, no one should be allowed to vote on science issues*). If the science is clear on it (to real scientists in that field), there should be no one claiming it's wrong. Way too many idiots and incompetents out there.

*If it's right, leave it alone. If you don't think it's right or needs improvement, prove it or shut the **** up!!!!!!
 
rwguinn said:
Some of us are working on it. Now if the Democratic Party will work on the dumbocrats, become less condescending, and use their obviously superior intellect to see that not everybody who disagrees with them is stupid, that there might be other points of view that are valid, we could get back to civil discourse.
I ain't holding my breath, because the stupocrats can kill this and themselves in the bud-- and probably will
Click to expand...

I understand that some things Democrats believe may not be perfect and occasionally be wrong (in terms of working out as planned). Problem is still the 1980 (1978 or so- 1982 or so) kowtowing to the Midwestern and related
religious intolerant conservatives who hated people on the coasts for having fun and, frankly, mocking the silliness that was coming out of them. That (paying attention to their widdle hurt feewings over the important parts of the country) was how the republickers used the religious xtian fanatics to increase their votes and I am certain gave not a single **** for the whole mass of them. Seriously, anyone claiming the country was going to make boys marry boys, girls marry girls and either possibly marrying farm animals is clearly incompetent to function in a rational society.
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
Very good and accurate point. Inadequately trained and informed persons should not be allowed to vote on science issues. (Of course, no one should be allowed to vote on science issues*). If the science is clear on it (to real scientists in that field), there should be no one claiming it's wrong. Way too many idiots and incompetents out there.

*If it's right, leave it alone. If you don't think it's right or needs improvement, prove it or shut the **** up!!!!!!
Click to expand...
You can vote all you want on science. It don't make a damn bit of difference, and events will still happen exactly as they would have before the voting.
 
rwguinn said:
You can vote all you want on science. It don't make a damn bit of difference, and events will still happen exactly as they would have before the voting.
Click to expand...
Quite correct, problem is many voters who know no functional science vote against things they do not understand to be NOT IN QUESTION as to their actual knowledge base. Thus the disbelievers in climate change, the stuff we know about space/the universe, evolution, etc. Tools and fools.:mad::mad::mad::mad::jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
 
rwguinn said:
You can vote all you want on science. It don't make a damn bit of difference, and events will still happen exactly as they would have before the voting.
Click to expand...


Nobody who complains about scientifically ignorant voters is worried about those voters somehow preventing a predicted event from happening. If that were the case, I'd be all for voting on whether or not global warming is real or not (and I would vote "not real"). No, that's not the problem. The actual problem is people who are uninformed or misinformed about the issue voting in ways that prevent a positive response to predicted negative events.

It's the same for issues of morality, except maybe inverted: ignorant people vote in ways that create a negative response to positive things.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Made a change. Just to add a wee bit of perspective shift.
Click to expand...

You might have a point.

Obviously both sides are equally wrong, and liberals ignore facts and science just as much as conservatives. :rolleyes:

Then, if I may ask, when are Republicans right? What policies and beliefs do they have that are backed up by facts, rather than what they want to be true? Off the top of my head, not in social, environmental, or economic issues.
 
rwguinn said:
I don't think so. They still love Trump over here, along with the Flag, The 2nd Amendment, and the Military.
The Country and The People, not so much...
Click to expand...

So, what was the big change? Out with the Tea Party and in with some more mainstream conservatives? That actually would be a nice change in a lot of areas around here . . .

And they love The People just fine, just not Those People.
 
Dr. Keith said:
So, what was the big change? Out with the Tea Party and in with some more mainstream conservatives? That actually would be a nice change in a lot of areas around here . . .

And they love The People just fine, just not Those People.
Click to expand...
Well, apparently Methodists are slightly more welcome. You don't have to be a member of the SBC to actually have a voice. It's a step toward moderatesville. Not a big step, but a step.
But Yeah, "Those people" are still not true people...
 
The_Animus said:
There are certain issues where both sides pretend there isn't nuance and context to the arguments being made.

At the same time there are a lot of people who are willfully ignorant, refuse to accept factual information, and instead just constantly repeat things that are flat out wrong. What then? It's nice to pretend everyones view has merit and we all just need to be respectful and listen and get along but reality doesn't always work that way.
Click to expand...

Who are you to tell the head of the EPA that evolution is suddenly science, he is a senior Republican official giving the people what they want. Next will be thinking of gays as people. Never happen in conservative america.
 
The_Animus said:
There are some on the left who believe those things. But they still aren't equal. Conservatives are more likely to believe fake news and crackpot conspiracies, and to dismiss actual facts as fake news than liberals. There are studies showing this.
Click to expand...

Hell 40% of republicans will call accurate reporting fake news if they don't like it while admitting it is accurate.

http://www.newsweek.com/republicans-fake-news-trust-media-low-poll-783116

They are getting positively postmodern with their world of alternate facts and such.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
This needs to be its own thread, but...




There is no practical difference between disagreement on science and disagreement on morality. I'm just as confident in my beliefs that global warming is real and that homosexuality is not a sin as someone else is in their beliefs that global warming is not real and that homosexuality is a sin.
Click to expand...

I want laws to be based on facts and science, if something is a sin like using the lords name in vain, I don't think it is the governments job to regulate that. So I don't care if homosexuality is a sin. So is being a jew or muslim or a catholic, and not something that the government should be involved with.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
There is no practical difference between disagreement on science and disagreement on morality.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that morality is objective?

I'm just as confident in my beliefs that global warming is real and that homosexuality is not a sin as someone else is in their beliefs that global warming is not real and that homosexuality is a sin.
Click to expand...

Confidence has nothing to do with it. Whether homosexuality is wrong or not is not a question of fact.
 
rustypouch said:
You might have a point.

Obviously both sides are equally wrong, and liberals ignore facts and science just as much as conservatives. :rolleyes:

Then, if I may ask, when are Republicans right? What policies and beliefs do they have that are backed up by facts, rather than what they want to be true? Off the top of my head, not in social, environmental, or economic issues.
Click to expand...

I could come up with just as many bad ideas from the left regarding economics, the environment, and social issues. Holy crap are you kidding?

I live in California after all where lakes were drained to save 12 individual Delta Smelt (fish) and all kinds of great decisions are made. In fact this state is so screwed up it's hard for me to believe that actual adults are in charge.

I can come up with a nice endless list if you'd like. I'd say both sides are equally rotten though and leave it at that. There's nothing "good" out there.
 
mgidm86 said:
I could come up with just as many bad ideas from the left regarding economics, the environment, and social issues.
Click to expand...
Errr... probably not.

First of all, who are you defining as "the left"? Yes, if you want to argue that "communism was a bad idea" you'd be right. But the majority of what you would consider "the left" are not that radical.

Secondly, keep in mind that just because you might disagree with "the left" over some of their policies on economics/the environment/social issues does not necessarily make them wrong.

I live in California after all where lakes were drained to save 12 individual Delta Smelt (fish) and all kinds of great decisions are made. In fact this state is so screwed up it's hard for me to believe that actual adults are in charge.
Click to expand...
Fine... you gave an example of an attempt to prevent the extinction of a species at the cost of a few thousand jobs.

How does that compare with the republicans and Trump labeling global warming a "hoax", an activity that threatens more than just a few thousand jobs... it threatens not only the economic welfare of millions but thousands of lives as well.

I can come up with a nice endless list if you'd like.
Click to expand...
Why do I suspect your list will be composed of small little nit-picks against the left (where many items involve tradeoffs or opinions), whereas your list of right-wing screw-ups will ignore the sheer magnitude of their screw-ups?
 
Belz... said:
Are you claiming that morality is objective?



Confidence has nothing to do with it. Whether homosexuality is wrong or not is not a question of fact.
Click to expand...

This wasn't directed at me but I'd say that morality is completely made up and changes depending on societal conditions. There is no right or wrong, for there would have to be some sort of final arbiter such as God or The Universe to make the ultimate determination.

There is no right or wrong to homosexuality, only consequences of it. People attribute rightness or wrongness to it depending on how they feel about those consequences. Some might look at the fact that homosexuality can result in a happy loving couple, or adoption and raising of a child, or the freedom for those people to be true to how they feel and they declare it good or right. Others might look at the fact that homosexuality has an increased risk of spreading STD's and the inability to procreate themselves and declare it bad or wrong. And of course they can declare something morally right or wrong based upon erroneous beliefs like that it's a sin against God and they will burn forever in hell if they do it.

But this is drifting off topic :D
 
I wish I could muster even a half optimistic response.

Both sides seem to be fully vested in the idea that they have a monopoly on virtue.

I see little room for reasonable *anything* at this point.

A CT that was floated before the election was that Trump was secretly in the employ of the democrats to steal the party, run the country into the ground if elected and end any notion that the Republican party could claim political legitimacy.

I'm no Ctist but part of that theory seems to be in evidence in current events. The Republicans couldn't do worse if they had a leadership position with the assigned duty of *********** up.
 
rwguinn said:
Well, apparently Methodists are slightly more welcome. You don't have to be a member of the SBC to actually have a voice. It's a step toward moderatesville. Not a big step, but a step.
But Yeah, "Those people" are still not true people...
Click to expand...

As to religion, Methodists are mostly pretty cool - not a religion to find nuts much in!!!
 
fuelair said:
As to religion, Methodists are mostly pretty cool - not a religion to find nuts much in!!!
Click to expand...
"And the guy in the rear..."
We've had to live that down since Johnny Cash did the damned song. My Brothers and sister went Hardcore Baptist, and I merely wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. But Methodists are still too wishy-washy for the State Republican Party..
 
rwguinn said:
"And the guy in the rear..."
We've had to live that down since Johnny Cash did the damned song. My Brothers and sister went Hardcore Baptist, and I merely wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. But Methodists are still too wishy-washy for the State Republican Party..
Click to expand...

Agreed. A local politician had an ad that showed her home with an open bible centered on a table like some sort of shrine. Not something you would see in a typical Methodist household, but necessary these days for the Texas GOP.
 
Belz... said:
Are you claiming that morality is objective?
Click to expand...


Nope.

Confidence has nothing to do with it. Whether homosexuality is wrong or not is not a question of fact.
Click to expand...


Confidence has everything to do with how you react to disagreements on both science and morality. It doesn't make sense that you're "allowed" to be more condescending toward a person who thinks global warming is fake than you are toward a person who thinks homosexuality is a sin, just because the former is a matter of science and the latter a matter of morality.

Conversely, it doesn't make sense that they can't be just as condescending toward you on either subject, just because you know they're wrong.

That's not how humans work.

When it comes to a disagreement between people, matters of science and morality are handled exactly the same by those people. They vote based on their beliefs and their confidence in those beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Nope.




Confidence has everything to do with how you react to disagreements on both science and morality. It doesn't make sense that you're "allowed" to be more condescending toward a person who thinks global warming is fake than you are toward a person who thinks homosexuality is a sin, just because the former is a matter of science and the latter a matter of morality.

Conversely, it doesn't make sense that they can't be just as condescending toward you on either subject, just because you know they're wrong.

That's not how humans work.

When it comes to a disagreement between people, matters of science and morality are handled exactly the same by those people. They vote based on their beliefs and their confidence in those beliefs.
Click to expand...

I always wonder if the vehemence of the denials of evolution is because the deniers are trying to convince themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom