3 ms·

>... I think the OP might have been referring to the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the P

>... I think the OP might have been referring to the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the POTUS? We ended up leaving Iraq at the same timetable that Bush had proposed. I recall many democrats complaining about not closing Guantanamo, or leaving Iraq faster. I don't recall any saying that it should continue and using going to war as a tool for pseudo-patriotic posturing. >... Well the unemployment numbers don't include the long term unemployed who would still like a job, etc so I would assume everyone should look beyond the simple number reported in the press. I am not talking about the subtlety of the different measures of unemployment and whether we should quote the U6 or U3 numbers when we speak about unemployment. I am talking about large parts of the Republican Party calling all unemployment data fake, rigged, designed to help Obama and all of the other demonstrably false descriptions used to support their agenda. If you want me to dig up some news articles I will, but it was basically how republicans said hello for the last two years of Obama's administration. >... Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming Democrats don't reject that it is scientifically possible to genetically modify food, or even that any assertion that is is totally safe is false. Rather, there are three main arguments against GMO: 1. The risk posed to humans is still uncertain and poses an outsized risk, 2. Allowing a company to patent food, along with monopoly rights, is a dangerous social policy, especially when farmers are being sued out of business by GMO crop contamination (even when they take great pains not to use GMO seed), 3. Consumers should at least be notified about the presence of GMO in food so they can make an informed choice. Democrats are not saying nuclear fission is fake, but the severity of an accident makes even a very low risk of an accident a very asymmetric harm that should be weighed carefully. Further, we don't have a legitimate storage facility for nuclear waste. I don't see how these two issues represent a "rejection of the science". >...No economist has ever proposed a policy called "trickle down economics". The pejorative is simply used by people to attack someone else's economic polices. Using a perjorative is simply an attempt to poison the well and prevent discussion. In terms of policies that don't work. but still get support... A couple that come to mind: - Umm President Bush gave a speech describing his supply side policies as trickle down...that is not me being pejorative, that is, and has been, the common descriptive phrase first suggested by a republican president. It has become pejorative because the policy has never delivered the outcomes it predicted and seems to also be casually linked to a large increase in income inequality. You can question the causal relationship, but when a policy is predicted to have a certain outcome, and seems to have a different, and seemingly negative outcome, it seems expected that it would get a bad popular opinion. >... - wasting money to require registration for the draft - war on drugs - DARE program - three strikes (voted in CA, a heavy democratic state) All of these are republican policies, I asked for one example of a zombie policy that democrats keep pushing in the face of overwhelming factual evidence that such policy doesn't work.

onething 8y ago
>...I don't recall any saying that it should continue and using going to war as a tool for pseudo-patriotic posturing. It isn't hard to see that opposition to the war dwindled drastically after the president had a D after their name in 2009. Why was that? We only left Iraq at the time proposed by Bush (and even then Obama tried to extend it but couldn't get agreement from the Ira government) >...Democrats don't reject that it is scientifically possible to genetically modify food, or even that any assertion that is is totally safe is false. Rather, there are three main arguments against GMO: 1. The risk posed to humans is still uncertain and poses an outsized risk, 2. Allowing a company to patent food, along with monopoly rights, is a dangerous social policy, especially when farmers are being sued out of business by GMO crop contamination (even when they take great pains not to use GMO seed), 3. Consumers should at least be notified about the presence of GMO in food so they can make an informed choice. Right - and the above is a rejection of the scientific consensus. >...Democrats are not saying nuclear fission is fake, but the severity of an accident makes even a very low risk of an accident a very asymmetric harm that should be weighed carefully. Even including Chernobyl (which was an unsafe design that would have been illegal to built anywhere other than the Soviet Union), the scientific consensus is that nuclear power has been the safest form of power generation. The positions of the conservatives on global warming is disgusting, but the refusal to accept the science on things like the above is also bad. >...Further, we don't have a legitimate storage facility for nuclear waste. It was a democrat who stopped that. Though next generation reactors will be able to use nuclear waste as fuel, so keeping the spent fuel around above ground might turn out to be the best approach. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor Unfortunately it was a democrat who stopped work on that design. >...President Bush gave a speech describing his supply side policies as trickle down... Let me guess, this was at a charity event or the white house corresponds dinner where you are expected to make fun of yourself. >...that is not me being pejorative, that is, and has been, the common descriptive phrase first suggested by a republican president. No. The first use of this was by William Jennings Bryan at the 1896 democratic national convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics >All of these are republican policies, Well let's see... It was libertarians like Milton Friedman who helped end the draft after the Viet Nam war. The registration for the draft was put back into place by Carter who was a democrat. Influential democrats like Charles Rangel have argued for actually implementing the draft: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/this-democratic-congressman-wants-to-bring-back-the-draft https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/this-democratic-congressm... A republican tried to insert language to end the registration but failed as democrats pushed to add women to the registration: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/15/senate-votes-to-require-the-draft-for-women-as-conservatives-try-to-undo-it/?utm_term=.aedcfc0e31b8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06... Same goes for the rest - as I said in my original message, conservatives support many if not all of the programs I've listed. If you want to argue that democrats don't support "zombie" programs that don't work and waste money, then either show democrats have ended these programs or that these programs are not "zombie" programs.

onething 8y ago

>...I don't recall any saying that it should continue and using going to war as a tool for pseudo-patriotic posturing. It isn't hard to see that opposition to the war dwindled drastically after the president had a D after their name in 2009. Why was that? We only left Iraq at the time proposed by Bush (and even then Obama tried to extend it but couldn't get agreement from the Ira government) >...Democrats don't reject that it is scientifically possible to genetically modify food, or even that any assertion that is is totally safe is false. Rather, there are three main arguments against GMO: 1. The risk posed to humans is still uncertain and poses an outsized risk, 2. Allowing a company to patent food, along with monopoly rights, is a dangerous social policy, especially when farmers are being sued out of business by GMO crop contamination (even when they take great pains not to use GMO seed), 3. Consumers should at least be notified about the presence of GMO in food so they can make an informed choice. Right - and the above is a rejection of the scientific consensus. >...Democrats are not saying nuclear fission is fake, but the severity of an accident makes even a very low risk of an accident a very asymmetric harm that should be weighed carefully. Even including Chernobyl (which was an unsafe design that would have been illegal to built anywhere other than the Soviet Union), the scientific consensus is that nuclear power has been the safest form of power generation. The positions of the conservatives on global warming is disgusting, but the refusal to accept the science on things like the above is also bad. >...Further, we don't have a legitimate storage facility for nuclear waste. It was a democrat who stopped that. Though next generation reactors will be able to use nuclear waste as fuel, so keeping the spent fuel around above ground might turn out to be the best approach. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor Unfortunately it was a democrat who stopped work on that design. >...President Bush gave a speech describing his supply side policies as trickle down... Let me guess, this was at a charity event or the white house corresponds dinner where you are expected to make fun of yourself. >...that is not me being pejorative, that is, and has been, the common descriptive phrase first suggested by a republican president. No. The first use of this was by William Jennings Bryan at the 1896 democratic national convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics >All of these are republican policies, Well let's see... It was libertarians like Milton Friedman who helped end the draft after the Viet Nam war. The registration for the draft was put back into place by Carter who was a democrat. Influential democrats like Charles Rangel have argued for actually implementing the draft: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/this-democratic-congressman-wants-to-bring-back-the-draft https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/this-democratic-congressm... A republican tried to insert language to end the registration but failed as democrats pushed to add women to the registration: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/15/senate-votes-to-require-the-draft-for-women-as-conservatives-try-to-undo-it/?utm_term=.aedcfc0e31b8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06... Same goes for the rest - as I said in my original message, conservatives support many if not all of the programs I've listed. If you want to argue that democrats don't support "zombie" programs that don't work and waste money, then either show democrats have ended these programs or that these programs are not "zombie" programs.