Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Isn't telling when you start with the insults. A sure sign you realize you've gotten your young ass handed to you. Thanks you loose.
Is there any measurable way the country does better with Republican presidents?
- Thread starter Mina
- Start date
Isn't telling when you start with the insults. A sure sign you realize you've gotten your young ass handed to you. Thanks you loose.
This is encouraging:
“Judge Forces Biden to keep Title 42 in place.”
Consider, if you will, a president who has to be forced to protect our citizens from an invasion of illegals (non-citizens) by a Federal Judge.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
sardines in a tin......
I remember during the bush2 years, liberals wanted him impeached for the Iraq war and we used to say "somebody give the man a BJ."
I remember that! LMAO!
Interesting. Most guys think that a BJ is a perfectly good use of time. Oh, you mean the (R)s impeaching Clinton for lying about it. Yes, I agree.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
All the usual JPP bullshit aside, EE is one of the few vets who served over 20 years in the service of our nation. That doesn't mean he's right or that you have to agree with him. It only means that, yes, he did have a real job.
Tks DU, what makes this country great is people who can disagree politically but remain friends.
All the usual JPP bullshit aside, EE is one of the few vets who served over 20 years in the service of our nation. That doesn't mean he's right or that you have to agree with him. It only means that, yes, he did have a real job.
And people that post like that usually have reached their peak at their job as a burger flipper.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
excellent!
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
That doesn't stop a million or more are already here and no "go back" date set.
Agreed. Accusing a person of not ever working for a living is a common left wing attack on the US military dating back to the Sixties. I can only go on appearances, not know the background relationships of people.
I think Mina is smarter than a hamburger flipper, but it remains to be seen how much she knows about the experiences of America's heroes in uniform. Although I'm not certain, I think their relationship goes back to Amazon.
Another forum which I belonged was melded into a larger forum. There was a group of us from the other forum, all kinda like family, suddenly jammed into a larger forum where people were divided into "us and them". It caused problems and misunderstandings.
I don't know any specific measure which Republicans did better, but I think you are attributing some things to party or political reasons with no evidence.
For example, the teen birth rate, crime rate, and divorce rate all began declining about 1992 and continued. These seem like larger societal trends rather than attributable to any government policies. To break those down to individual years by party ignores the trend which continued during the presidencies of both parties.
Can you name any policies of either party that led to the declines of these three factors?
What evidence would you like to see, specifically?
Keep in mind:
(1) This is not an experimental science, where we can run history a hundred times, tweaking variables, until we've isolated exactly what is causing what. Even with the most careful analysis, we're going to be stuck making guesses based on the best available evidence. Sometimes those guesses may be little better than blind guesswork -- but if they're AT ALL better than blind guesswork, that's still going to be better than going with our gut instincts, or trying to reason from a priori assumptions, which are the approaches most people take.
(2) Like it or not, we need to make high-stakes political decisions on an ongoing basis, without waiting for better evidence. Elections are happening every two years, at least, and they are potentially EXTREMELY high impact events. Taking no position and waiting for better evidence just isn't an option here. Even not voting is a position of sorts. So, the question comes down to whether we make a decision that is in line with the best available evidence, however shaky, or whether we make one contrary to such evidence.
True. Yet those things don't actually explain the Republican/Democrat difference. Let's look at the murder rate only the period after 1992 (through 2020, when the preliminary reading was 6.6). So, how do Republicans look versus Democrats in that time? Well, turns out the murder rate FELL 3.8 points, net, during the Democratic administrations and ROSE 1.1 points during the Republican administrations. That's a short period of time, so you can say the sample size is too small to be meaningful, but that ends up a little like the guy who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he's an orphan. We narrowed down to post-1992 in an attempt to erase the Democratic advantage that shows when we include all available data, so disqualifying the narrower test because it's narrow would be a Catch-22 situation.
Similarly, I have data for birth rates of 15 to 17 year olds from 1992-2000. Here is the per-year decline in that rate by president:
Clinton 1.375
Bush 0.75
Obama 1.50
Trump 0.75
Again, small sample size, but a big difference between Democratic and Republican eras, even after we specify post-1992.
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/da...573,869,36,868,867/2829,6,8,7,251/15589,15590
And there's another way to reality-check the idea that Democratic/liberal leadership is better on that front. If my hypothesis is right, and the reason the Democratic eras are so much better at lowering teen birth rates is related to more liberal policies, rather than random chance, then we'd expect that to show up at the state level, as well. In other words, if I'm right, we'd expect to see low teen birth rates in very liberal states and high ones in very conservatives states. Turns out that's exactly what we see -- teen birth rates are over four times as high in the most conservative states than the most liberal ones. In fact, of the bottom ten teen birth rates in the US, ALL TEN were states that went against Trump in both elections. There's only a single conservative state with first-world-level teen birth rates: Utah. Coincidence? It's certainly consistent with the hypothesis that liberal leadership helps to achieve low teen birth rates, just as the presidential-era data suggests.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm
Absolutely. Take crime as an example. A lot of crime is stimulated by dysfunctional cities, and Democrats do more to invest in cities, making them less dysfunctional. That includes efforts to lower poverty, like child tax credits and higher minimum wages. It includes efforts to keep at-risk kids off the street, from subsidized childcare to enhanced after-school activities, and even things like midnight basketball. It also includes efforts to promote mixed-income settlement patterns, which fights against slum formation. Democrats are also better about addressing pollution, and one factor in the decline of violent crime rates has been reducing lead poisoning. Then there's gun control. I know it's an emotionally difficult thing for conservatives to accept that gun control lowers crime rates, but it does. When Clinton pushed through the Brady Bill, the conservatives predicted crime would spike because it would be harder for people to arm themselves, while the liberals predicted it would fall. Turns out the liberals were right.
These arguments can be frustrating because they feel like they go in circles. Like Democrats say, let's do X, Y, and Z, because doing so will bring about good results A, B, and C. Then, when they do it, and A, B, and C actually happen the conservatives insist it's a coincidence and demand to know what policies the Democrats enacted that brought about A, B, and C. And, of course, the conservatives dismiss those, notwithstanding the real-world events. And that brings me back to my opening question: what evidence do you want to see? Since it's not an experimental science, we're never going to have 100% conclusive evidence.
The best we can do is make our choices based on the evidence we have at the moment, however shaky it might be. And the fact it's so difficult to find a stat that favors Republican-led eras (or conservative-dominated states, for that matter) should be telling us something. If you're stuck on a desert island and have two fresh water sources to drink from, and you drink from one a few times and are fine, but you drink from the other a few times and get violently ill, which one are you going to choose to drink from next? Even without lab equipment to prove there's something wrong with the water in that second source, you're forced to choose, so it's just a matter of whether you go with the best available evidence, however shaky, or stubbornly insist on continuing to try your luck, and hoping you don't actually die from dysentery.
Last edited:
All the usual JPP bullshit aside, EE is one of the few vets who served over 20 years in the service of our nation. That doesn't mean he's right or that you have to agree with him. It only means that, yes, he did have a real job.
I suppose that depends what you call a real job. I've seen a number of conservatives scoff at the notion that jobs paid for by taxes, rather than competing in the private sector, aren't real jobs.... though they always seem to make an exception for military.
First, why is it that dumb people always write "loose" when they mean "lose"? It's so remarkably consistent.
Second, you'll note I never am the first to insult. What generally happens is that some elderly man with severe erectile dysfunction will start feeling bad that he's getting his ass kicked by a young woman. Since that further complicates the emotional crisis he's experiencing from the disappearance of his virility, he feels the need to lash out. Even with me keeping things impersonal, and arguing strictly based on facts, the limp poster will experience enough of a meltdown that he will choose to make things personal, attacking my age and suggesting I have no experience with the world. Then, when I turn around and do the exact same thing, it will provoke a hilarious crying jag from the impotent old man, who will complain about me starting with the insults, even though I was literally only echoing his own line of rhetoric -- making the exact same claims about him that he did about me. Basically, he imagines the fair rule is he gets to call me naïve, but if I reply by calling him naïve, that's starting with the insults and a sure sign I'm losing.
The lack of self awareness among these pathetic old men is worth the price of admission.
You need to get laid, Missy.
Don't we all? The difference is I can any time I feel like it.
The same fucking morons are against "socialism" yet accept money from the government. The key factor to remember is that they are fucking morons. While civility requires us to treat people with respect, it's akin to working with children. I'll yell to get a grandchild's attention but I always know that they are still a child...especially the 3 year old. Once I have his attention we can talk civilly.
Most of those with whom you are arguing are elderly, single Euro-American males whose manhood is a decade or two in the past...if not longer, and who are fearful of dying.
Notice that TDAK hasn't posted since the 6th:
Another example is Darth Omar who has been MIA for months...and is probably dead.
Last edited: