The GOP and Its Discontents

[Cold Front]

I didn't say it did rally voters. For most people it's a complete non-issue, so why are you asking me to provide evidence to the contrary?

Um, we are talking about the ones who do vote Republican. Obviously I don't take issue with poor folks voting Democrat!

And you are mental if you think most poor white southerners vote Democrat.

The real poor people in the south are mostly African-Americans, not whites. And they vote Democrat.

And many poor whites do vote Democrat. You don't think those West Virginia voters kept sending Democrats to Washington for decades because of black solidarity, do you? Because I hate to be the one to tell you, but black votes are practically non-existent in West Virginia.

Are you intentionally ignoring my points? I am saying that poor and middle class Republicans vote for candidates that support policies that will hurt them financially in the short run (guaranteed) and in the long run (in my opinion). I can't state it any clearer.

Yes, you have clearly stated this, but you haven't clearly proven it. Middle class Republicans don't go to the polls to vote for the repeal of the estate tax, for example, or for a high flat tax. If you think they do, prove it.

And with very few exceptions, poor Republicans don't exist. They certainly aren't a major bloc in the party.

Of course, if you think giving the poor less benefits and believe that people losing healthcare coverage are good things for them, make the case.

Why would I make a case I don't believe in?

I'm the guy who argues with Republicans that they are stupid to believe Hispanics are ever going to become a swing vote so long as the Republican Party remains the party of small government conservatism.

Why would Hispanics vote against their interests? They are poor and need government services, so it's natural they vote for the party most prepared to give them those services. And that's not the Republican Party.

If you think cutting the capital gains tax and top tax brackets will create jobs, make the case. Otherwise it just sounds like you're whining about my characterization, calling it bullshit but can't make an argument against it.

I'm not the one claiming something that I can't prove. So I don't have to make a case. You do.

You're the one who is trying to argue that poor people are fooled into voting Republican. You have no proof for this claim other than the kind of economically-illiterate Thomas Frank' arguments which have long been discredited.

What? My claim is that flat taxes are horribly regressive. They benefit the rich, are slightly beneficial to upper middle-class/lower upper-class, are neutral or hurt the middle class and have very negative consequences for the poor, who also happen to be the most vulnerable.

Your uninteresting claim about flat taxes is subsidiary to your more important claim about people voting against their interests. It's that latter claim we are debating.

Again, make the case that flat taxes help the middle class and poor, but I am seriously skeptical. And if you do attempt to explain it, remember to include spending cuts that would accompany revenue shortfalls. If you have a revenue neutral flat tax, I think you're a total jackass to be honest.

You're dodging again.

I'm not interested in defending a flat tax, which I have never advocated. What I'm interested in debating is your claim that many Republicans are drawn to vote against their interests.

 

[Uchi Mata]

You segue between different elements of climate change alarmism without relating it back to politics.

1) Is anthropogenic climate change real?

2) If true, how catastrophic will it be? If at all?

3) If catastrophic, how much control does humanity have over mitigating the results in a controlled and predictable fashion?

4) If we humans do have some control, how much of a role will US politics matter to these projections?

5) Finally, how far out into the future do these projections go?

You're only dealing with question #1, but many Republicans, such as myself, think that is the least relevant political question.

And so climate change denialism, to me at least, is less about believing in the issue of anthropogenic climate change itself and more about disbelieving the projections and heavy skepticism about our role in changing them to our benefit through public policy.

In talking to many Republicans, I believe that is where their skepticism is heaviest. They simply don't believe that you have any idea about the possible results or how to control them with any finesse. So they simply deny it. All of it.

California under the faux-Republican Terminator passed SB32, which was a stupid bill designed to make environmentalists in the state feel good about themselves, but it didn't do a Goddamn thing about global warming. How could it? It only affected California, which is far too marginal to the increase in global carbon to matter.

This is climate change in action. Feel-good stupidity piled on top of feel-good stupidity.

I think you're right to a large extent, in fact (though I'm not going to look it up), I believe there are quite a few quotes from GOP leaders along the lines of 'I believed in climate change until I realized what it would cost to fix it'. I can't stand that attitude. If you don't think we can do anything about it or it's not worth addressing I think you're wrong, but just say so. Don't pretend to stick your head in the sand because you want to avoid tough conversations.

 

[Quipling]

I think you're right to a large extent, in fact (though I'm not going to look it up), I believe there are quite a few quotes from GOP leaders along the lines of 'I believed in climate change until I realized what it would cost to fix it'. I can't stand that attitude. If you don't think we can do anything about it or it's not worth addressing I think you're wrong, but just say so. Don't pretend to stick your head in the sand because you want to avoid tough conversations.

There's a solid paper I reviewed a few years back on Bush's (and the GOP)s evolution on environmental issues, and how environmentalism shifted from being a bipartisan issue to being a highly politicized one as the energy industry crawled into bed with the GOP. I've been trying to dig it up, but I can't remember what it was called.

 

[panamaican]

There's a solid paper I reviewed a few years back on Bush's (and the GOP)s evolution on environmental issues, and how environmentalism shifted from being a bipartisan issue to being a highly politicized one as the energy industry crawled into bed with the GOP. I've been trying to dig it up, but I can't remember what it was called.

I think it's titled "Politics: A Study in As Usual." :icon_chee

 

[Cold Front]

I think you're right to a large extent, in fact (though I'm not going to look it up), I believe there are quite a few quotes from GOP leaders along the lines of 'I believed in climate change until I realized what it would cost to fix it'. I can't stand that attitude. If you don't think we can do anything about it or it's not worth addressing I think you're wrong, but just say so. Don't pretend to stick your head in the sand because you want to avoid tough conversations.

Well, cost is not a trivial thing, especially when you can't be sure of what the results of climate change will be.

If some course of action costs more and won't likely lead to a much different result, then why wouldn't that affect your attitude? It ought to.

Think of it like insurance. You can't be sure some catastrophe will happen, but you believe there's a possibility it will. So you buy insurance to protect yourself.

But what if the insurance in one scenario costs you a thousand a year and in another scenario costs you twenty-thousand a year. Wouldn't that difference in cost make a difference to your decision? Or at least give you greater pause before buying the insurance? It ought to.

 

[Cold Front]

And to get this thread back on topic, I want to introduce a poll from last month: Pew Poll: GOP

 

[Uchi Mata]

Well, cost is not a trivial thing, especially when you can't be sure of what the results of climate change will be.

If some course of action costs more and won't likely lead to a much different result, then why wouldn't that affect your attitude? It ought to.

Think of it like insurance. You can't be sure some catastrophe will happen, but you believe there's a possibility it will. So you buy insurance to protect yourself.

But what if the insurance in one scenario costs you a thousand a year and in another scenario costs you twenty-thousand a year. Wouldn't that difference in cost make a difference to your decision? Or at least give you greater pause before buying the insurance? It ought to.

Of course it does. But if flood insurance was really expensive I wouldn't just say 'floods aren't real'.

Even if we aren't going to try and cut greenhouse emissions, if we know that things like drought are much more likely in a warming world there're still investments we can make to try and mitigate the worst effects, e.g. water conservation. But if we deny warming entirely as the GOP does then it becomes very hard to take any action, even if that action falls far short of actually reducing emissions.

 

[Cold Front]

Of course it does. But if flood insurance was really expensive I wouldn't just say 'floods aren't real'.

But there's a difference between a flood that threatens your garage and one which threatens to inundate your entire home - and you won't pay the same price for both.

Even if we aren't going to try and cut greenhouse emissions, if we know that things like drought are much more likely in a warming world there're still investments we can make to try and mitigate the worst effects, e.g. water conservation. But if we deny warming entirely as the GOP does then it becomes very hard to take any action, even if that action falls far short of actually reducing emissions.

But do you even know that much? And is water conservation the best method for dealing with it even if it does happen?

I personally prefer reviving something like NAWAPA to help deal with the possibility of more droughts like are currently taking place in California. Or you could develop infrastructure that pumps the water across the continental United States in years like this one - when the east was heavily inundated with storms, but the west saw little precipitation.

After all, the main problem in California is that immigration has increased the population by fifteen million over the last thirty years, but the state has added no new major water infrastructure projects. Well, it's no wonder the state's aquifers are going dry.

Why is it that Democrats who support immigration think that helps the environment?

 

[Uchi Mata]

But there's a difference between a flood that threatens your garage and one which threatens to inundate your entire home - and you won't pay the same price for both.



But do you even know that much? And is water conservation the best method for dealing with it even if it does happen?

I personally prefer reviving something like NAWAPA to help deal with the possibility of more droughts like are currently taking place in California. Or you could develop infrastructure that pumps the water across the continental United States in years like this one - when the east was heavily inundated with storms, but the west saw little precipitation.

After all, the main problem in California is that immigration has increased the population by fifteen million over the last thirty years, but the state has added no new major water infrastructure projects. Well, it's no wonder the state's aquifers are going dry.

Why is it that Democrats who support immigration think that helps the environment?

I disagree that immigration has anything to do with it. California uses 80% of its water on agriculture, and farmers have actually been switching to more water intensive crops like almonds and pistachios because, by perverse economics, the drought has made those crops more expensive and thus incentivized planting them. The problem is they haven't had rain. Weather patterns are getting disrupted by changes in ocean temperatures and it's killing them.

 

[Cold Front]

I disagree that immigration has anything to do with it. California uses 80% of its water on agriculture, and farmers have actually been switching to more water intensive crops like almonds and pistachios because, by perverse economics, the drought has made those crops more expensive and thus incentivized planting them.

The 80 percent stat is fabricated by environmentalists to cover their own contribution to the state's problems with water.

He says the right water pie includes net usage of water from California