U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-23-2015, 01:07 PM
 
20,524 posts, read 14,080,106 times
Reputation: 5920

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
left and right, libs and conservatives, are driven by ideology these days. so sad.

take gun rights. every study out there says that expanded conceal an carry rights reduce crime. libs deny.

it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that there is little in the way of a free market level playing field. the right wing is oblivious.

QED
Agreed. I'm "liberal" in some areas but, a "conservative" in others.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 04-23-2015, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,593 posts, read 6,978,370 times
Reputation: 2419
In terms of the foundations of writing, thought, and theory each faction we're discussing here has, this is far and away the best piece I've found, perhaps because it's just about the only good piece that even asks the question "why don't liberals have a movement culture with a canon of writers and thinkers?" .

I believe the reason, as this blog post from a Randian perspective suggests, is the intellectual-philosophical foundations of left-liberalism are currently quite weak and have been for a while now, and any ideology that doesn't have a solid theoretical foundation will not succeed in the long run. Most voters may not be into theory but they can tell the difference between a faction that makes sense and know what they're doing and a faction that doesn't. Marxism-Leninism's foundation weakened and it went extinct; sure, we still have a taste for state power and hatred of markets in some quarters, and while that is a hazard to the future it doesn't make for a viable political philosophy long-term. Notice that we had many suggesting the system be replaced by central planning that will provide prosperity for all in the 1930's and even in the 1970's but not in the 2010's.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-23-2015, 01:20 PM
 
Location: USA
23,733 posts, read 16,866,337 times
Reputation: 15094
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Sigh. it depends on the conservative. There ARE some that are all about faith, or their belief, there are others that are about facts. A LOT of the ones on CD are about how they believe things should be though.
"Sigh. it depends on the conservative."
It does. As soon as you separate 'Religous Conservative' from 'Conservative' you get fact based people. Non religous Engineers and business people would be typical of this. Barry Goldwater would be reflective of this mentality. Jerry Falwell and others like him are the opposite of what a conservative person is.

Most people are not purely conservative or liberal and really need a qualifier, even though they like to identify as such.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-23-2015, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,719 posts, read 27,330,266 times
Reputation: 9241
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
The number of guns increase, the number of gun owners decreased . I didnt differentiate in my original post so let me make it clear for you now.

less guns in the hands of less people equals less gun deaths, not simply less guns.

And the bold actually proves my argument per capita means less shootings per person.


if there are 100 people and 10 of them are shot, is that not better than 10 people being shot out of 75 ????? If your logic was true, gun deahts would be up and in proportion with the population.
Do you have credible data to show fewer people have guns today?

What logic did I try to promote? All I said was that there is no data to show that fewer guns equals fewer deaths by guns.

Per capita gun ownership is clearly up. Per capita homicides and per capita gun deaths are down.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ership-us-data
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-23-2015, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
35,993 posts, read 36,085,319 times
Reputation: 55707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
I got this from desertdetroiters thread on Obamas poll ratings worldwide. People automatically dismiss the poll because of sample size, when the sample of 1000 isn't actually that bad, statistically speaking.

But it seems that conservatives in general don't like studies. I'll admit, there are a lot of flawed ones, but not all of them are. Why is it that they seem to dismiss studies so rapidly though? are liberals just as dismissive of studies?

I have found for issues like minimum wage, unemployment, effects of globalization... conservatives are generally much more theory based while liberals are more open minded to empirical results.

What do you think?
I think you are wrong, I think savvy people know who pays to have surveys and studies done and how results are spun to give them what their paying customers want to hear.

Most people don't read and the news media doesn't report survey/polling methodology. I'm not sure if the latter doesn't do it because they don't understand it or because they are deliberately obfuscating. I tend to lean more that they don't understand it. Are journalism majors required to take a course in statistics or research methodology? I doubt it. I don't think they understand economics, either, or it's too boring for them and that's how the opinion jockeys missed the recession until after it was upon us, but that's another story.

If you've ever received political junk mail, you know the loaded questions they ask you to get you to make a donation (and remember, this is from a party you support). Many ask what I call compound questions. That is, they make a false presumption in the first half of the question and ask you to react to a particular action they want you to agree with taking against it in the latter part of the question to get you to donate. That's the kind of surveys everyone sees regularly during a campaign cycle so it's no wonder regular people don't trust survey and polling results where they only see/hear the results. They think what they get in the mail is typical.

Most TV and web reporters (I don't read newspapers anymore so who knows what the heck those guys are doing these days) don't bother to educate the sheep on the difference between polling, registered voters, likely voters and any adult that picks up the phone. They lead you to erroneously believe that polling any adult who picks up the phone is actually indicative as to how an election will go (candidate or ballot issue). They may even spend 10 minutes discussing the implications of meaningless poll results. They know some people will go along with the herd if they think that candidate will win or a high percentage of people are for or against an issue on the ballot. They throw in a low margin of error for emphasis.

I'll give you a totally made up example. What if some Republican machine group in DC, paid for a poll to find out how their candidate Jeb Bush is doing primary-wise? The seemingly innocuous poll question is, "Which GOP candidate will you support?" (notice I didn't say "vote for" but people hearing the results will assume that) and the poll lists all the Republican candidates or possible ones. Do you think Bush's rank will differ if they ask any adult that picks up the phone versus registered likely voters? Considering his immigration stance and those of his opponents, his pollsters may do better asking any adult who picks up the phone than asking likely voters so they poll any adult who picks up the phone. The public will see he's at the top of the GOP heap, percentage-wise when the results come in.

His peeps will tell you, "See, this poll shows he's the only one that can beat Hillary Clinton." The TV opinion jockeys will make you believe it's all over for the other Republicans, Jeb's The Man and cut off the interviews of the other candidates. But what if half or two thirds of those polled aren't eligible to vote? They may support Bush but so what if they can't vote? What if the guy that came in third is actually the one, registered Republican likely voters prefer?

What if the same poll results are used to decide who can participate in the primary debates? You know, the debates represent publicity the poorer candidates count on. What then?

Unrelated, how do I know the "representative sample" equally represents Republicans who live in urban areas versus those that don't? Ever hear of a polling sample described that way? Maybe Jeb Bush (again, totally fictitious example) does really well throughout the country but Los Angeles, NYC, Miami and Chicago are throughout the country. Are those poll results representative of small town, rural and suburban American voters? How would I know?

Unrelated to polling, ever hear of a university receiving a large grant for a study to prove the hypothesis that climate change is primarily due to sun activity?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-23-2015, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
35,172 posts, read 22,675,538 times
Reputation: 13807
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense.

Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights.

Neither is wrong or bad. I honestly do not believe one can be 100% liberal or 100% conservative. For example, Dwight Eisenhower. A social/cultural conservative who rebooted the New Deal and expanded the welfare state.

People on CD have strong personal opinions. It is impossible to be 100% unbiased, everything that you have ever seen, heard, felt, or have generally experienced shapes how you perceive the world and everything you come in to contact is a affected by and molded into that perceived notion.

CD debate can be fun, but when it gets personal, it gets ugly. Nothing personal, internet is not serious business
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-23-2015, 02:27 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 4,974,880 times
Reputation: 3135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
I got this from desertdetroiters thread on Obamas poll ratings worldwide. People automatically dismiss the poll because of sample size, when the sample of 1000 isn't actually that bad, statistically speaking.

But it seems that conservatives in general don't like studies. I'll admit, there are a lot of flawed ones, but not all of them are. Why is it that they seem to dismiss studies so rapidly though? are liberals just as dismissive of studies?

I have found for issues like minimum wage, unemployment, effects of globalization... conservatives are generally much more theory based while liberals are more open minded to empirical results.

What do you think?
I think you're completely wrong. It is liberalism that is based on emotions and rhetoric rather than reality, not conservatism.

It's liberals who insist there is a gender wage gap when the BLS studies that show the gap say it is from seniority, travel, hours worked, etc and not from gender discrimination.

It's liberals who continually support government stimulus as a means of getting out of economic hard times, despite history showing that method has never worked.

It's liberals who insisted that single motherhood was noble and heroic, when the absence of a father has been shown to be the single largest factor in teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, school dropout, delinquency, etc.

It's liberals who blame racism for the problems in the black community, when history shows the problems in the black community have actually gotten worse since the passage of Civil Rights than they were before.

It's liberals who continually push gun control when none of the gun control laws that have been enacted have ever been shown to reduce gun violence.

It's liberals who insist that the rich should pay higher tax rates to pay their "fair share", when the laffner curve demonstrates that higher tax rates on the wealthy actually result in less government revenue being collected.

It's liberals who promote labor unions as being great for the working class, when the standard of living in right to work states is actually no worse than that in union states.

It's liberals who claim there is no bias in the media or education, when as many as 80% of educators are registered Democrats and comparisons of media coverage of Democrat versus Republican politicians have shown conclusively that Democrats get far more and far more positive coverage.

It's liberals who support amnesty and immigration reform as being healthy for the nation, when the CBO itself reported that illegal immigration has resulted in a significantly higher unemployment rate amongst the nation's poor.

It's liberals who rail against the rich exploiting the poor resulting in people not getting a living wage, which directly contradicts the law of supply and demand which shows that a business must pay a wage the market will bear or else they will not be able to attract competent employees.

It's liberals who continually want to "invest" in education, when the results of all past increases in education spending have ended up with American students getting worse test results, not better.

It's liberals who push and push for increased social spending, when the results of their great "War on Poverty" over the past few decades have not resulted in any drop in the poverty rate whatsoever.

It's liberals who refuse to allow school voucher programs to pass, when the trial runs of voucher programs have only shown positive results.

It's liberals who claim that voter ID laws are a racist attempt to disenfranchise minorities, when the actual reality is that states that have voter ID laws do not have any less minority turnout than states that don't.

It's liberals who advance the idea that welfare doesn't promote government dependency, when social workers have shown that multigenerational poverty is a significant problems and that they have trouble with children in homes where the parents are on government assistance and do not instill study habits or value for education in those children.

So I'm afraid that your assertion that liberals place value in empirical results does not stand up to scrutiny. Liberalism is based on theory, not empirical results. The empirical results are that their policies have been failures with no reduction in poverty rates, no increase in children's educational results, no discernable proof of any of the "rampant racism" that supposedly exists, etc. Yet they continue to push the same policies year after year and election after election.

Liberalism is about doing things that feel good. It feels good to increase funding for schools. It feels good to help the disadvantaged. It feels good to be against racism. But the real world results? Failure. So I'm afraid your observation about the value liberals place on empirical results is wrong.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-23-2015, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Corona del Mar & Coronado, CA
3,079 posts, read 1,815,848 times
Reputation: 3802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
I got this from desertdetroiters thread on Obamas poll ratings worldwide. People automatically dismiss the poll because of sample size, when the sample of 1000 isn't actually that bad, statistically speaking. But it seems that conservatives in general don't like studies. I'll admit, there are a lot of flawed ones, but not all of them are. Why is it that they seem to dismiss studies so rapidly though? are liberals just as dismissive of studies? I have found for issues like minimum wage, unemployment, effects of globalization... conservatives are generally much more theory based while liberals are more open minded to empirical results.
There is a big difference between a poll and a study.

When I read a poll that blares headlines "People think XYZ!" I want to know who is doing the poll, do they have an agenda; exactly what the question(s) asked, it is easy to get the answer you want based on how you ask the question and I want to know the demographics of the people polled. What party, what age, income level and education level.

Once I know all that I'll make a judgment on the poll.

As to studies, some of the same criteria exist. I want to know who is doing the study, do they have an agenda. When an organization does a study and the study magically supports their aims and goals I am a skeptic no matter which side of the spectrum they fall on.

As to personality types there can be no absolutes, but in general I find conservatives pragmatic and task oriented. I find liberals more emotional and caring about doing good is as good as actually doing it. They don't care if their programs are miserable failures because they cared more.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-23-2015, 02:51 PM
 
110 posts, read 105,827 times
Reputation: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
rubbish pure and simple. we conservatives want REAL science, and REAL facts, and REAL evididence, not the crap that some come up with after they have doctored the information.

and liberals tend to go on "feelings" rather than real evidence.
Having been a member of both sides of the political spectrum, I agree with your assessment.

Using the poll mentioned by the OP, the reason conservatives would dismiss the results is likely based on reading the factors that are the basis of the poll, like the subject group that was polled, the way the questions were presented, etc. Liberals are more likely to deny the results of a poll based solely on the source of the poll results, whether the entity that funded the poll is ideologically aligned with the liberal viewpoint. Whether the sponsor of the poll has any religious background at all...because that automatically disqualifies any work product by that person from having any validity.

Also, I think that conservatives tend to value independence and eschew group think and accepting something based on "what the cool kids are doing" or because they want to appear "broad minded" and "progressive," while conservatives are willing to be subjected to ridicule and dismissal because they question studies and poll results.

Example:

Poll question - Should gays be banned from marrying? Well, gays are not "banned" from marrying right now, so the natural answer would be no. That is a skewed question that is intended to get a specific result.

If the poll question was less "emotion based" as stated - Should the traditional definition of marriage be changed from "a union between one man and one woman" to "a union between two individuals"? The results of that poll would be very different, because the question is not based on emotions or the implication that by saying yes or no, you are somehow depriving someone of something and are therefore evil.

Same with the issue of discrimination. Poll question - Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation? How could the results be anything but 100% NO?

But, Poll Question - Is the owner of a private business protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution to freely express his/her religious conscience? Again, this is not a biased question...there is no mention of sexual orientation or religious faith listed. It is not an emotional question, but one that could be answered just be reading the Constitution.

That is why most polls/studies are dismissed by conservatives and embraced by liberals. IMO
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-23-2015, 04:46 PM
 
Location: USA
23,733 posts, read 16,866,337 times
Reputation: 15094
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnitegracie View Post
Having been a member of both sides of the political spectrum, I agree with your assessment.

Using the poll mentioned by the OP, the reason conservatives would dismiss the results is likely based on reading the factors that are the basis of the poll, like the subject group that was polled, the way the questions were presented, etc. Liberals are more likely to deny the results of a poll based solely on the source of the poll results, whether the entity that funded the poll is ideologically aligned with the liberal viewpoint. Whether the sponsor of the poll has any religious background at all...because that automatically disqualifies any work product by that person from having any validity.

Also, I think that conservatives tend to value independence and eschew group think and accepting something based on "what the cool kids are doing" or because they want to appear "broad minded" and "progressive," while conservatives are willing to be subjected to ridicule and dismissal because they question studies and poll results.

Example:

Poll question - Should gays be banned from marrying? Well, gays are not "banned" from marrying right now, so the natural answer would be no. That is a skewed question that is intended to get a specific result.

If the poll question was less "emotion based" as stated - Should the traditional definition of marriage be changed from "a union between one man and one woman" to "a union between two individuals"? The results of that poll would be very different, because the question is not based on emotions or the implication that by saying yes or no, you are somehow depriving someone of something and are therefore evil.

Same with the issue of discrimination. Poll question - Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation? How could the results be anything but 100% NO?

But, Poll Question - Is the owner of a private business protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution to freely express his/her religious conscience? Again, this is not a biased question...there is no mention of sexual orientation or religious faith listed. It is not an emotional question, but one that could be answered just be reading the Constitution.

That is why most polls/studies are dismissed by conservatives and embraced by liberals. IMO
Good examples.

An interesting point to me is there seems to be many conservative Democrats: Religous people: Catholics and Muslims come, aloong with many union members, but not so many liberal Republicans
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top