Is The Alt-Left Craziness Driving Centrists To The Right

a reply to: Gryphon66

Why does it matter if Clinton got 100 million more votes?
We don't live in an actual Democracy governed by popular vote.

We live in a Constitutional Republic that utilizes an Electoral College structure to determine who is elected President. So your arguments about Hillary being more popular are not only irrelevant in terms of the idea you are hoping to present (that because more people wanted Hillary, it's fair and reasonable to think she ought to be President) - but your ideas are also contrary to the founding principles of the Republic - that the mob is irrational and ignorant and dangerous, and ought to be put into check by systems EXACTLY LIKE the Electoral College.

This way the States that have low populations still get to have a voice in how their states are affected by the Federal powers.

If this "Hillary had more popular vote so therefore should have been President" argument had any validity, than you are also saying that:
1) Low population states do not deserve any valid political power
2) That you do not agree with the Constitution or the theory of a Republic
and
3) That you'd prefer the majority mob to rule simply by the fact they outnumber everyone else

Otherwise why would you continually bring up the popular vote count in such a negative connotation?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Is The Alt-Left Craziness Driving Centrists To The Right

We'll see in 2018, ya?

All indications point to the answer being "yes, yes it is driving moderates rightward in droves," but the proof will be in the pudding. Remember, the same folks saying it isn't happening are the ones who insisted Trump couldn't win in 2016 in either the primaries or the general.

Really haven't seen any indication of that. After a the next failings of Congress the next and opposite set of losers will be elected.

a reply to: muzzleflash

The discussion was about popular opinion. What "most people" believe and want. If you can't see how that relates to popular vote totals ... I can't help you.

You keep repeating information about the Electoral College ... that has noting to do with the popular vote or popular opinion.

Feel free to show that I have argued here that Clinton should be President; if you can't, admit your considerable intellectual dishonesty on display here.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Is The Alt-Left Craziness Driving Centrists To The Right

We'll see in 2018, ya?

All indications point to the answer being "yes, yes it is driving moderates rightward in droves," but the proof will be in the pudding. Remember, the same folks saying it isn't happening are the ones who insisted Trump couldn't win in 2016 in either the primaries or the general.

What are some examples of those "indications" that you're referring to?

a reply to: Gryphon66


Since most people don't vote and the people that do aren't 100 percent sold on their parties I would say yep people are not moving anywhere but to more cynicism.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Gryphon66

Looks like you avoided my argument.

You claimed the "Right wing" is anti-science.
I countered by stating a fact, that they support the military and university research just as much as the D party does. That they are in factual reality, both pro-science.

You did not accept this fact, and even referred to it as a spurious claim and my "opinion".
It was a factual claim based on all available evidence and it was not my opinion, it was an observation of objective reality.

You are making claims that you cannot support, and will not even face that when confronted directly.
(Claim being challenged, that R = anti-science)

You don't have an argument ... you've claimed that made-up statistics about research universities and your own opinions mean something.

Then, you can prove that supporting research universities proves any commitment to science rather than benefiting their own districts (i.e. pork barrel politics.)

If you'd like to present something as a fact, give us something to back it up with substantive evidence.

If you want to challenge something other than my opinion, ask me to do the same thing.

So continually supporting funding for hard-science research programs at universities by continuing to fund them has no bearing on whether or not a political party is anti or pro science?

Please explain to me than what "anti-science" means in your lexicon. You and I seem to be speaking different languages. I'm pretty sure it means exactly what I think you hoped I'd interpret as meaning, but I showed you that your view is mostly incorrect depending on what context we put your claims in.

I am going to claim that Republicans and even the Alt-Right types are pro-science by and large, and that their continued funding of University and Military research programs is evidence of that.

I didn't invent that statistic. Are you saying Republicans almost always vote against any type of research?

a reply to: luthier

Watch the primaries. The GOP's congressional failures will lose in 2018, in the primaries to new Republican blood, who will then win the 2018 generals. I expect the House will see the GOP's lead shave down a bit, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Senate actually go redder.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, what's the Dem's record in "OMG, we're gonna pick up a seat and deliver a YUUUUGE blow to Trump" special elections in 2017?

a reply to: Ohanka

Wow just looked up Tulsi Gabbard. Cant say I agree with all her stances but she seems like a smart, decent, well balanced human being. Same that cant be said of almost any other politician.

Alas the fact she is a very high quality candidate will likely mean her being side lined for a repulsive candidate. Hell would not surprise me if the democrats run Hillary again or double down on stupid and run Pelosi.........

And no doubt the republicans will side line there high quality candidates and nominate someone equally repulsive......


Remember we are dealing with a country that out of 300 million Americans picked Trump and Hillary to run....

a reply to: muzzleflash

Do you have the data on this funding you keep claiming? If you do, start a thread.

Anti-science ... in my opinion, is the denial of the results of valid scientific research. Anti-science is the promulgation of the absurd religious beliefs that you tried to exclude in your original claim that make up so much of the fundamental beliefs of those who call themselves Republican and even "alt-right."

You haven't provided any proof for your claims. You merely keep repeating that your opinions are true.

Oh, PS ...

The Trump administration's proposed 2018 budget cuts billions from public health and biomedical research programs. Business Insider


Trump budget seeks huge cuts to science and medical research, disease prevention - Washington Post

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, what's the Dem's record in "OMG, we're gonna pick up a seat and deliver a YUUUUGE blow to Trump" special elections in 2017?

The indications that you're referring to are your silly impressions of what you think Democrats say?

Seems like pretty scant evidence ... but okay, thanks for the response.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: muzzleflash

The discussion was about popular opinion. What "most people" believe and want. If you can't see how that relates to popular vote totals ... I can't help you.

You keep repeating information about the Electoral College ... that has noting to do with the popular vote or popular opinion.

Feel free to show that I have argued here that Clinton should be President; if you can't, admit your considerable intellectual dishonesty on display here.

I am repeating information that proves you are wrong sir.
It has everything to do with you and your bad attitude and your activity interacting with the rest of the world, of which I am part of.

You're just going to have to deal with it.
You can put your head in the sand and squirm away from facing evidence and sound arguments that prove you are incorrect for awhile, but you can't hide from the truth forever.

Look, everyone's wrong about stuff everyday. It's human, no one's perfect.
I don't see what's the big deal, why do you think you always have to be right?
Can't you just concede occasionally when you are overwhelmed with a good argument?

If you feel like everything is threatened by one little fact disagreeing with you, than perhaps your entire belief system is a house of cards lacking any stability? How could being wrong about one thing bring everything down and be seen as so threatening?

You avoided ever substantiating your claim about Rightwing = Anti-science.
I argued against it and supplied sound reasoning.
You simply won't face it.

I came out of the woodwork just over that one thing today with you.
It's because I saw what was going on with you man, you needed this.
You needed to be shown you were wrong conclusively without a shadow of a doubt and that you, if you review your posting history between us here in this thread, did every little thing you could to avoid it and get out of it and slide past it. But I won't allow it.

This simply will never end until you either face and defeat my counter-claim objectively by means of proper debate methodology or you will admit you are wrong. There is no other option left.

You may not pass. This is the end of the line Gryphon66.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I doubt it. The GOP has failed as a whole. There are literally maybe a dozen or so who work for the people and actually make legislation for them. They are also political outsiders.

The way it works in reality is the lobbyists pour money into candidates. When one stands against those interests they put money in the opponent.

50 percent of the public disagrees with the gop.

The only stabilizing force would be a centrist who can bring back working together.

The nature of politicians unwilling to admit other points of view have a right to exist and should work with compromise for the whole of america, is to have unstable legislature. Trump is tearing out Obama's legacy. The next Democrat will tear apart trumps etc...it's far harder to do when Americans in general benefit from the legislation.

So I doubt at this point in history without a moderate centrist leading congress to compromise for the good of all Americans that the trend of flipping philosophy after failure won't continue.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You are repeating your opinions. You're not stating facts. Now you've moved on to ridiculous comments about "me."

While I'm always glad to hear from a fan, that's irrelevant and off-topic.

See above for several references to massive cuts to research by the Trump administration.

Here again for your convenience.


The Trump administration's proposed 2018 budget cuts billions from public health and biomedical research programs. Business Insider


Trump budget seeks huge cuts to science and medical research, disease prevention - Washington Post

So, feel free to provide any backup for your opinions ... but for the rest, you've bored me to ignoring your posts.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The Ctrl-Left definitely drove me toward the right.

I could not believe the craziness and intellectual dishonesty I saw coming from leftists and their leaders.

I did not want to be associated with these people or their ideals and I haven't voted Democrat in almost 10 years.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I doubt it. The GOP has failed as a whole. There are literally maybe a dozen or so who work for the people and actually make legislation for them. They are also political outsiders.

The way it works in reality is the lobbyists pour money into candidates. When one stands against those interests they put money in the opponent.

50 percent of the public disagrees with the gop.

The only stabilizing force would be a centrist who can bring back working together.

The nature of politicians unwilling to admit other points of view have a right to exist and should work with compromise for the whole of america, is to have unstable legislature. Trump is tearing out Obama's legacy. The next Democrat will tear apart trumps etc...it's far harder to do when Americans in general benefit from the legislation.

So I doubt at this point in history without a moderate centrist leading congress to compromise for the good of all Americans that the trend of flipping philosophy after failure won't continue.

Yep..... what was the last major piece of Bipartisan legislation? Medicare Part D? Both Sides will dither on Infrastructure, Healthcare and Taxes till we are in another Recession. It's not that far away.

If we on both sides could get our collective wills together and vote out Everybody, maybe we'd stand a chance of getting consensus.

a reply to: Ohanka

Traditional leftism have been totally abandoned in favour of modern "progressiveism" focusing on racial and gender policy.

Yes it has.

Classical liberalism,civil liberties, and defenders of free speech.

Has gone the way of the do do bird.

It's become extinct.

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The Ctrl-Left definitely drove me toward the right.

I could not believe the craziness and intellectual dishonesty I saw coming from leftists and their leaders.

You don't have to keep using the absurd "Ctrl-Left" ... someone actually found an altleft.com today.

Awesome, eh?

Of course, it has nothing to do with "Antifa" or terrorism or any of that crap ... but still, kudos where due and all.

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The Ctrl-Left definitely drove me toward the right.

I could not believe the craziness and intellectual dishonesty I saw coming from leftists and their leaders.

I did not want to be associated with these people or their ideals and I haven't voted Democrat in almost 10 years.

Yeah it's getting crazy. Just as crazy on the right/conservative side too. I'm a registered independent. I think I'm only voting independent/third party from here on out, the rest of my life. There's a tide coming and sooner or later it will reach a tipping point.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Oh, PS ...

The Trump administration's proposed 2018 budget cuts billions from public health and biomedical research programs. Business Insider


Trump budget seeks huge cuts to science and medical research, disease prevention - Washington Post

Ok finally you are at least trying to substantiate your original claim.

Now, why did the Republicans claim they needed to cut a few % off these programs?
Was it because they don't believe in medical science and instead believe we should fund prayers for medical purposes with that money?

Or was it because our nation is in deep debt and simply cannot afford everything we want, and they couldn't figure out how to cut their favorite science subject, military technology ?

An in addition, if you are saying the primary reason that Republicans cut funding to the CDC was because they simply don't believe that modern medical science has any validity in terms of actually healing people, than I have many more questions to ask you about this.

Why do you think they still go to the hospital most of the time? Why wouldn't they cut the CDC 100% and let it collapse? Is it a slow incremental approach so as to not alarm any of the pro-science Democrats?

Can America actually afford all of these programs to have their budgets continually increased without raising taxes or tariffs?

Do you consider military technology to be science?

Yes, it's true, a lot of groups did get their funding cut (but others got a raise).
The real question here, in terms of your "anti-science" argument, is why are they getting cut?

I want to know.
If you can conclusively show me that Republicans are absolutely anti-science, I'll join your side in the debate. Maybe I am wrong and they pulled the wool over my eyes? Show me. Explain it.