Here are your Republican Primary voters

[Doc Savage Fan]

His MO isn't to give his opinion but only to post and run, that way when he is called out on his bullshit he can claim that people are interpreting his posts wrong.

My MO is to avoid attempting to engage in reasonable conversations with those who are clearly incapable of doing so. For the record, I have zero respect for you...you're an idiot and will always be an idiot in my opinion.

 

[dank69]

I'm saying that PPP is run by liberal hacks and that the questions were intentionally designed to make Republicans look stupid. You can do the same thing to Democrats regarding other subjects if it's your primary objective to make them look stupid. I quoted a liberal publication which not only freely admitted to PPP's notoriously liberal bias but also questioned their credibility as a polling organization. When a liberal publication gets on your ass for being too liberal and questions your credibility....well it doesn't get much more embarrassing than that.

If anyone has partisan blinders on it's those who rationalize this highly partisan horseshit as being anything close to objective.

Liberal publication calling PPP biased? We'll have to remove that publication from the LMSM holiday party invite list...

 

[Atreus21]

Both liberals and conservatives are less likely to trust science when results are out of sync with their ideology.

 

[Moonbeam]

Both liberals and conservatives are less likely to trust science when results are out of sync with their ideology.

But not equally. Liberals are more easily able to change by exposure to reasoned arguments. This false equivalency argument you have made is there to. Comfort your ego. The scientific fact is that his is a known feature of the CBD.

 

[Atreus21]

But not equally. Liberals are more easily able to change by exposure to reasoned arguments. This false equivalency argument you have made is there to. Comfort your ego. The scientific fact is that his is a known feature of the CBD.

Uh...prove it.

 

[Genx87]

When analyzing pollster outcomes fivethirtyeight determined that PPP is more accurate than Rasmussen, yet you have linked to Rasmussen in the past. If PPP is a joke, why would you link to a pollster that is even less accurate and do so uncritically?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

Makes me wonder what it takes to get banned. Some of these with a D score have avg error ranges in the 20s.

 

[fskimospy]

Makes me wonder what it takes to get banned. Some of these with a D score have avg error ranges in the 20s.

All of the pollsters with average errors in the 20's have only 1 or 2 polls analyzed, which makes the sample too small to be meaningful.

I would imagine that's a big reason why they aren't banned.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Uh...prove it.

Your a hypocrite having a Mo av in the name of freedom, while promoting your pro life stance because of your religion

 

[dank69]

Your a hypocrite having a Mo av in the name of freedom, while promoting your pro life stance because of your religion

I would have gone for the "he's a hypocrite for claiming both parties do it" without proving it while asking Moonbeam to prove that conservatives do it more.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Uh...prove it.

Seems a simple poll question asking conservatives and liberals whether they believe evolution is real is enough to prove his point, and I think you have a good idea how that poll would turn out. If you dont believe in evolution, you have closed yourself off to reasoned argument in favor of folklore that was transcribed into a book over a thousand years ago when people still believed the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. You dont get a personal waiver with respect to reasoned argument just because you choose to side with religious dogma as a matter of faith.

 

[Moonbeam]

Uh...prove it.

Already have many times.

The information is out there . Here is some of a book based on the findings:

http://www.alternet.org/story/15425...ted_conservatives_deny_science_--_and_reality

Here is one actual study's:
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html

 

[nickqt]

Both liberals and conservatives are less likely to trust science when results are out of sync with their ideology.

Uh...prove it.

Yes, prove it.

 

[Atreus21]

Your a hypocrite having a Mo av in the name of freedom, while promoting your pro life stance because of your religion

And you're clueless.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes, prove it.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/658/1/36.abstract

Abstract:

There has been deepening concern about political polarization in public attitudes toward the scientific community. The “intrinsic thesis” attributes this polarization to psychological deficiencies among conservatives as compared to liberals. The “contextual thesis” makes no such claims about inherent psychological differences between conservatives and liberals, but rather points to interacting institutional and psychological factors as the forces driving polarization. We evaluate the evidence for both theses in the context of developing and testing a theoretical model of audience response to dissonant science communication. Conducting a national online experiment (N = 1,500), we examined audience reactions to both conservative-dissonant and liberal-dissonant science messages and consequences for trust in the scientific community. Our results suggest liberals and conservatives alike react negatively to dissonant science communication, resulting in diminished trust of the scientific community. We discuss how our findings link to the larger debate about political polarization of science and implications for science communicators.

 

[MongGrel]

Sounds better than the Democrat primary voters.

Question for Democrat primary voters: What percentage of Obamas' heritage is "Black African"?

Hint: If you say 50% you are wrong.

:hmm:

 

[Orignal Earl]

And you're clueless.

I used 2 clues against your 0

 

[nickqt]

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/658/1/36.abstract

Abstract:

That's the abstract. You likely don't have access to the full article behind the pay wall.

I do.

Here is an extract from the end of the piece:

One important open question concerns why the magnitude of the negative
affective response and motivated resistance to persuasion was greater in the
conservative-dissonant condition than was the case in the liberal-dissonant condition.
One possible explanation for these differences is the greater attitude polarization
between liberals and conservatives on issues of climate change and human
evolution as compared to fracking and nuclear power. For instance, post hoc
analysis shows significantly higher levels of ideological differentiation in the accuracy
of beliefs for the two conservative-dissonant issues (liberals more accurate
and conservatives less accurate) as compared to liberal-dissonant science issues.
We suspect that these observed differences help us to explain the conditional
indirect effects reported here

But not equally. Liberals are more easily able to change by exposure to reasoned arguments. This false equivalency argument you have made is there to. Comfort your ego. The scientific fact is that his is a known feature of the CBD.

What Moonbeam said is pretty much what they've found. Sure, there are stupid libruuls who are dissonant about science when it disagrees with what they believe. But it isn't as much as conservatives.

Another extract:

Climate change and the debates over teaching evolution generally have had a
higher profile in media and political discourse than those over fracking or nuclear
power, as have associated partisan identity markers. By virtue of these topics’
prominence, individuals know what (liberal and conservative) opinion leaders
believe, and they know a great deal about the debate. Together, these factors
leave individuals better equipped to counterargue and more likely to react negatively
to the messages, which may help to explain the somewhat greater magnitude
of the indirect effects on trust via motivated resistance for the
conservative-dissonant condition as compared to the liberal-dissonant condition.

In essence, conservatives are tribe members who know what the official answer is to almost every question. Evolution? Hell no, I ain't no ape. Climate change? Yeah right, AlGore™ is fat.

Another extract:

Additional post hoc analysis confirms the participants were generally
angrier about climate change and human evolution topics than the other four topics
(fracking, nuclear power, geology, and space), and these high levels of anger
translate into greater distrust of the scientific community for everyone.
These results suggest, distressingly, that political polarization around science
has the potential to depress trust in science, regardless of where one lies on the
ideological spectrum. In our experiment, institutional trust was significantly
lower for all participants, including liberals, when considering conservativedissonant
issues, because of the psychological response of all participants to messages
about science that are deeply ideologically polarized.
What leads some science issues to be more ideological polarized than others?
Our data do not address this question, but we suspect that this is where the institutional
processes and political dynamics outlined in the contextual thesis come
into play. For example, liberal-dissonant issues such as hydraulic fracking, nuclear
power, or genetically modified food currently have relatively low public salience compared to conservative-dissonant issues such as climate change and human
evolution. The low salience of liberal-dissonant science policy issues contributes
to the relative stability of institutional trust in the scientific community among
liberals over the last 30 years. Liberal audiences have not been exposed to
repeated liberal-dissonant messages, which we have shown would drive down
institutional trust in the scientific community. Conservative audiences, in contrast,
have faced a steady stream of dissonance-inducing science messages—a process
augmented by the emergence of partisan news outlets that vary greatly in their
treatment of issues such as climate change, and lead to greater polarization about
the issue among viewers (Hmielowski et*al. 2013; Feldman et*al. 2012).

Here we see that the louder the yelling is against science, the more likely it is to get people to distrust it. Perhaps the reason that libruuls aren't as distrustful of science as conservatives is that the issues that libruuls are dumb about aren't trumpeted loudly and proudly in the MSM like Evolution and Global Warming. Teach the controversy™!

Give us libruuls an actual libruul media that caters to libruuls, and perhaps we'll be just as distrustful as conservatives in the future. Hooray?

Finally, they end with this, which I agree with.

By promoting the
idea that there are inherent psychological differences between conservatives and
liberals when forming attitudes and making judgments about science, they are
effectively—and ironically—contributing to the very political polarization of science
they decry and thereby inhibiting more effective science communication.
Some who adhere to this thesis rightly point out that “leading with values,” not
with evidence, in a science message may be an effective communication strategy
when communicating dissonant science to conservative audiences (Mooney
2011). However, by targeting conservatives specifically as somehow uniquely
deficient when it comes to science, the overall framework of the intrinsic thesis
lends itself to focusing on ideological countermobilization and/or a conversion of
worldviews (“If only everyone were liberal!”), rather than to bridging ideological
gaps (because the intrinsic thesis holds that they cannot be bridged). Demonizing
a third of the population in a science policy debate by claiming they have an
insurmountable psychological deficit does nothing to promote a solution to the
challenges of effective science communication. And, as we have shown here, it is
not empirically justified.

The divide between conservatives and libruuls has more to do with Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Mail, and NBC/CBS/ABC then it does with anything intrinsic or psychological. Perhaps if conservatives would stop demonizing anything that isn't towing the conservative line, they might at least be willing to listen to the science. Same as with stupid libruuls who think all nuclear power will end the earth in the next 5 years because of a Jane Fonda movie.

Fortunately for most libruuls, anything even remotely libruul, such as AirAmerica, etc, fails because there just isn't big money behind libruul issues.

 

[ivwshane]

My MO is to avoid attempting to engage in reasonable conversations with those who are clearly incapable of doing so. For the record, I have zero respect for you...you're an idiot and will always be an idiot in my opinion.

Lol! The boomerang defense! And just like boomerang, you've become a total troll.

 

[HomerJS]

Uh...prove it.

Obama was born in Hawaii and is a US citizen

 

[Moonbeam]

That's the abstract. You likely don't have access to the full article behind the pay wall.

I do.

Here is an extract from the end of the piece:




What Moonbeam said is pretty much what they've found. Sure, there are stupid libruuls who are dissonant about science when it disagrees with what they believe. But it isn't as much as conservatives.

Another extract:


In essence, conservatives are tribe members who know what the official answer is to almost every question. Evolution? Hell no, I ain't no ape. Climate change? Yeah right, AlGore™ is fat.

Another extract:



Here we see that the louder the yelling is against science, the more likely it is to get people to distrust it. Perhaps the reason that libruuls aren't as distrustful of science as conservatives is that the issues that libruuls are dumb about aren't trumpeted loudly and proudly in the MSM like Evolution and Global Warming. Teach the controversy™!

Give us libruuls an actual libruul media that caters to libruuls, and perhaps we'll be just as distrustful as conservatives in the future. Hooray?

Finally, they end with this, which I agree with.


The divide between conservatives and libruuls has more to do with Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Mail, and NBC/CBS/ABC then it does with anything intrinsic or psychological. Perhaps if conservatives would stop demonizing anything that isn't towing the conservative line, they might at least be willing to listen to the science. Same as with stupid libruuls who think all nuclear power will end the earth in the next 5 years because of a Jane Fonda movie.

Fortunately for most libruuls, anything even remotely libruul, such as AirAmerica, etc, fails because there just isn't big money behind libruul issues.

My point, as you correctly pointed out, was correct, that the degree of cognitive dissonance between liberals and conservatives toward science in there but not equal in degree. The wording was cleverly done by a conservative source to say that 'liberals and conservatives alike' share a trait, but that is not the same as saying they share it at an alike degree.

Furthermore, the study did not address the root causes of these differences, postulating instead an unproven theory that the differences result from the degree the issues appear in liberal or conservative media, a total rationalization based on psychological motivation. The authors are of the opinion that the fact that liberals and conservatives have differently wired brains is causing conservatives to be more anti science than needed. This is nonsense. These folk are political scientists with political motivations, not neuroscientists looking at physical data. They exhibit the same reaction to neuroscience evidence of conservative liberal differences, based on actual brain data, as conservatives do, defensively, as if the presence of differences in conservative brains compared to liberal brains equates to inferiority. It is that self created self contempt for being different that conservatives manifest, that makes them feel as though being different means being inferior. They come in feeling inferior and voila, they project that feeling everywhere. You become what you fear and the fear of inferiority leads to its manifestation, not the other way round.

Conservative denial of conservative behavior based on fear of being inferior IS the conservative brain defect. There is no brain defect except the one they imagine and they do imagine it. It's that they won't face. Too much ego involved to face the fact you manufacture your own inferiority by denying reality you have mistakenly deemed inferior.

This is what they can't see because they don't want to.

 

[brycejones]

Obama was born in Hawaii and is a US citizen

The Clintons killed Vince Foster to cover up that he wasn't. All the libs are in on it.

 

[nickqt]

The Clintons killed Vince Foster to cover up that he wasn't. All the libs are in on it.

Oh God, you bought into that? That's just the official line meant to hide the real truth.

See, KingObummer™ was actually born in Botswana in 2136 to a gay-married tribe of Muslim Communist Fascist Atheists. After murdering millions of FutureAmuricans™, he gained control of a CIA-built time machine, and time traveled back and recruited Vince Foster to be his agent. Since then, Vince Foster has had to fake his own death in order to gain cover so that he could plant the birth announcement of KingObummer™ in a newspaper. Since then, his priority mission under KingObummer™ has been to institute an Agenda21 plan to recruit preteen Hispanics inoculated with Ebola from ISIS to come to Amurica to take away everyone's guns.

Also: Benghazi.

 

[DrDoug]

New Rupublic is a liberal publication for crying out loud and even they acknowledge PPP's ridiculous partisan bias and questionable credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_magazines

But don't let such facts that get in the way of your partisan bias....we can't have that now can we?

It may have had liberal beginnings but liberals have despised TNR for years now. They even use the "even the liberal New Republic" as a joke amongst themselves. There was a recent article at Politico from someone who worked there seeing the change as it happened.

Also, using Wikipedia to prove something like this? Really? Shit, read TNR and you can see it's not a liberal rag. It really just sucks and that's about it.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Oh God, you bought into that? That's just the official line meant to hide the real truth.

See, KingObummer™ was actually born in Botswana in 2136 to a gay-married tribe of Muslim Communist Fascist Atheists. After murdering millions of FutureAmuricans™, he gained control of a CIA-built time machine, and time traveled back and recruited Vince Foster to be his agent. Since then, Vince Foster has had to fake his own death in order to gain cover so that he could plant the birth announcement of KingObummer™ in a newspaper. Since then, his priority mission under KingObummer™ has been to institute an Agenda21 plan to recruit preteen Hispanics inoculated with Ebola from ISIS to come to Amurica to take away everyone's guns.

Also: Benghazi.

I'd swear you were a Canadian.
Been chuckling since you started posting

 

[rudeguy]

And here are your democrat politicians:


Fail Compilation Of Liberals And Democrats: http://youtu.be/VrjzWU1BwPw