[OT] Who should you vote for this November?

[5th line wingnutt]

I find a lot of people hate career politicians *execpt* the one from their district.

 

True.

[5th line wingnutt]

You know what the big bang theory is? A theory. It is not proven. If the big bang theory is being taught, why can't the "theory" of Christianity be taught?

 

I am a Pastafarian. If you are going to teach Christian Creationism then I insist on also teaching Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Creationism

 

I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

[deluca67]

I am a Pastafarian. If you are going to teach Christian Creationism then I insist on also teaching Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Creationism

 

I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Isn't that the religion started by Al Dente?

[5th line wingnutt]

Isn't that the religion started by Al Dente?

 

Blasphemy! Google us and learn the truth. Pasta be unto you.

[deluca67]

Blasphemy! Google us and learn the truth. Pasta be unto you.

When you baptize, is the water salted or unsalted? ;)

[FogBat]

Is this really necessary?

No, it wasn't. In hindsight, it was uncalled for and I do apologize for crossing the line.

 

Right. And Christianity isn't a science, it's a religion that should be studied theologically.

 

If you want to teach creationism (or religion for that matter), then you need to provide classes to students in theology. There's nothing wrong with offering that, and I think theology should be offered as elective course work in high school. It would be nice to have high school students running around understanding and discussion the religions of the world, rather than just falling one way or another, religious or athiest/agnostic.

 

It all boils down to the fact that the theory of evolution is scientifically testable, whereas creationism isn't.

Not sure if you guys have been paying attention to this, but a lot of parents have been pulling their kids from the government schools and homeschooling them. It doesn't matter if they're Christian or secular. They have their reasons for doing so, and I would find it hard to dismiss any of their arguments or rationale for doing so. A close friend of mine in Pittsburgh did this for a while until her health started giving out on her. Now she is sending them to a Catholic school (even though she's firmly Protestant) because the Christian schools have priced themselves way out of her budget.

[TrueBlueGED]

Instead of sending us on a 'wild google chase', why not just cite the research?

 

Are you saying that the academic press is gold and/or the non academic press is garbage?

My impression is closer to the opposite.

 

The system of representation does not work for me. I am 65, and during my entire adult life I have never been represented (in the house of Representatives) by someone with views that are close to my own. In the last election cycle a congress critter got elected from my district with economic views close to my own and social views very different from mine. She as good as it has gotten, my half a loaf is better than none congress critter. Ironic but I got gerrymandered out of her district in short order.

 

The system of representation does not work for lots of people. Suppose a candidate wins 60-40. Not everyone in the district is registered to vote. Not all registered voters exercise the franchise. You would be hard pressed to find a single congress critter with a positive endorsement from even half of the potential voters.

 

Finally, maybe the reason people hate career politicians is precisely because they are not doing a good job.

 

1) Because it's not my field of expertise, so I don't know the citations off the top of my head.

 

2) Academic press is the gold standard. Though, it's not the perfect standard--plenty of academic stuff gets published which frankly shouldn't, or should with major revisions. But if you have two books on the same subject and don't know anything about the publishers/authors, your best chance at getting an objective picture of how something actually works will be from the academic book. Most non-academic books are written by somebody with an agenda, wouldn't know an advanced statistical model if it took a dump on their chest, and use way too many anecdotes in an attempt to prove a point.

 

3) The system is meant to represent people, not a person. If you aren't getting represented perfectly that doesn't even begin to show that the system doesn't work. Also, the system is meant to represent voters...if people choose not to vote, and don't get represented, I don't see the problem.

 

4) If career politicians were not doing a good job, they wouldn't be career politicians--they'd lose. Most incumbents aren't safe because all incumbents are safe, they're safe because they do the things they need to do to be re-elected--namely, accurately representing their constituency.

[darksabre]

No, it wasn't. In hindsight, it was uncalled for and I do apologize for crossing the line.

 

 

Not sure if you guys have been paying attention to this, but a lot of parents have been pulling their kids from the government schools and homeschooling them. It doesn't matter if they're Christian or secular. They have their reasons for doing so, and I would find it hard to dismiss any of their arguments or rationale for doing so. A close friend of mine in Pittsburgh did this for a while until her health started giving out on her. Now she is sending them to a Catholic school (even though she's firmly Protestant) because the Christian schools have priced themselves way out of her budget.

 

Define "a lot of parents". Last I checked all the public schools I know are over capacity, especially in the suburbs.

[LastPommerFan]

1) Because it's not my field of expertise, so I don't know the citations off the top of my head.

 

2) Academic press is the gold standard. Though, it's not the perfect standard--plenty of academic stuff gets published which frankly shouldn't, or should with major revisions. But if you have two books on the same subject and don't know anything about the publishers/authors, your best chance at getting an objective picture of how something actually works will be from the academic book. Most non-academic books are written by somebody with an agenda, wouldn't know an advanced statistical model if it took a dump on their chest, and use way too many anecdotes in an attempt to prove a point.

 

3) The system is meant to represent people, not a person. If you aren't getting represented perfectly that doesn't even begin to show that the system doesn't work. Also, the system is meant to represent voters...if people choose not to vote, and don't get represented, I don't see the problem.

 

4) If career politicians were not doing a good job, they wouldn't be career politicians--they'd lose. Most incumbents aren't safe because all incumbents are safe, they're safe because they do the things they need to do to be re-elected--namely, accurately representing their constituency.

 

Do you honestly believe that accurately representing the constituency is what it takes to get re-elected?

[TrueBlueGED]

Do you honestly believe that accurately representing the constituency is what it takes to get re-elected?

 

It's the primary factor. A given representative may not perfectly represent his/her constituency on every issue, but there's absolutely a limit as to how often they can vote against their constituents. For example, how many conservative districts have a liberal House member? That doesn't mean the conservative representative votes conservative on literally everything, but their record absolutely has to be in the conservative direction to stay in office. It's why Democrats in the South and midwest are more conservative than their northeastern brethren--they have to be. Representatives are essentially under house arrest--they can move around to an extent, but if they go too far they get taken away and lose the house.

[LastPommerFan]

It's the primary factor. A given representative may not perfectly represent his/her constituency on every issue, but there's absolutely a limit as to how often they can vote against their constituents. For example, how many conservative districts have a liberal House member? That doesn't mean the conservative representative votes conservative on literally everything, but their record absolutely has to be in the conservative direction to stay in office. It's why Democrats in the South and midwest are more conservative than their northeastern brethren--they have to be. Representatives are essentially under house arrest--they can move around to an extent, but if they go too far they get taken away and lose the house.

 

I would contend that, in all but a couple of dozen competitive seats, their value to the party is more important than their value to the constituency. They can only lose their seat if the party chooses to run a strong candidate against them in the primary.

[TrueBlueGED]

I would contend that, in all but a couple of dozen competitive seats, their value to the party is more important than their value to the constituency. They can only lose their seat if the party chooses to run a strong candidate against them in the primary.

 

That's the thing though, the party doesn't decide who runs. A lot of very conservative Republican incumbents lost the party nomination to Tea Party candidates because the incumbents weren't conservative enough. The Republican leadership absolutely did not want the Tea Party candidates to win in such large numbers, because it makes governing difficult. Not that I have a great love for John Boehner, but I had sympathy for him because he had an absolutely vicious time whipping the votes in line on the debt ceiling last year. The Republican leadership did NOT want Christine O'Donnell to win the nomination because Delaware was going to be a shoe-in for them that election...until she go the nomination, and she was way too conservative to win a race in moderate-left Delaware. But, the people chose.

 

Obviously more than just ideological congruence influences which candidate wins--district level competition, candidate quality, etc. But districts (and states) absolutely have bounds that representatives need to be within ideologically, or they will lose, even in safe districts...regardless of party.

[LastPommerFan]

That's the thing though, the party doesn't decide who runs. A lot of very conservative Republican incumbents lost the party nomination to Tea Party candidates because the incumbents weren't conservative enough. The Republican leadership absolutely did not want the Tea Party candidates to win in such large numbers, because it makes governing difficult. Not that I have a great love for John Boehner, but I had sympathy for him because he had an absolutely vicious time whipping the votes in line on the debt ceiling last year. The Republican leadership did NOT want Christine O'Donnell to win the nomination because Delaware was going to be a shoe-in for them that election...until she go the nomination, and she was way too conservative to win a race in moderate-left Delaware. But, the people chose.

 

Obviously more than just ideological congruence influences which candidate wins--district level competition, candidate quality, etc. But districts (and states) absolutely have bounds that representatives need to be within ideologically, or they will lose, even in safe districts...regardless of party.

 

Your using anecdotal evidence from a single election cycle effected by a group that splintered off from the party. I agree with your assessment of what happened, but in the vast majority of elections in the vast majority of districts, the party effectively chooses who will get the nomination easily. Not to mention the fact that in safe districts without open primaries, the minority party members are effectively disenfranchised.

[TrueBlueGED]

Your using anecdotal evidence from a single election cycle effected by a group that splintered off from the party. I agree with your assessment of what happened, but in the vast majority of elections in the vast majority of districts, the party effectively chooses who will get the nomination easily. Not to mention the fact that in safe districts without open primaries, the minority party members are effectively disenfranchised.

 

Well said. You would have made a good political scientist. On a broader note, voters of a particular party in presidential elections are effectively disenfranchised--Republicans in New York, Democrats in Texas, etc....oh how I hate the electoral college.

 

The problem with this discussion, of course, is that discussing the conditions which cause a "safe" incumbent to lose are by definition outliers :P . I have full confidence in saying that if Paul Ryan were to suddenly start voting super-liberal, he'd be ousted by 2014 (whether it would be driven by the district or the party is really a chicken-egg argument). Of course, that won't happen--representatives don't flip their ideology on a dime. So the only evidence we're left with is that incumbents who are in-line with their constituency continually get re-elected, while incumbents too far out of line lose (which again, are outliers). Disentangling the relative causal importance of party, district ideology, institutions and electoral context from that kind of a setup is a mess, to say the least.

[LastPommerFan]

Well said. You would have made a good political scientist. On a broader note, voters of a particular party in presidential elections are effectively disenfranchised--Republicans in New York, Democrats in Texas, etc....oh how I hate the electoral college.

 

The problem with this discussion, of course, is that discussing the conditions which cause a "safe" incumbent to lose are by definition outliers :P . I have full confidence in saying that if Paul Ryan were to suddenly start voting super-liberal, he'd be ousted by 2014 (whether it would be driven by the district or the party is really a chicken-egg argument). Of course, that won't happen--representatives don't flip their ideology on a dime. So the only evidence we're left with is that incumbents who are in-line with their constituency continually get re-elected, while incumbents too far out of line lose (which again, are outliers). Disentangling the relative causal importance of party, district ideology, institutions and electoral context from that kind of a setup is a mess, to say the least.

 

Which brings me back to the reforms I'd like to see in the congress. I would agree to a compromise where electoral college electors are distributed based on congressional districts (1 per district, 2 for winning the state) That, combined with some expansion of the house (The House of Commons has over 600 members, surely we can make 1,000 work, if not my desired 3,000) would maintain some importance of regional politics in presidential elections, while reducing the disparity between the power held by a voter in Wyoming(550k people, 1 house seat) and that of a voter in Montana (900k people, 1 house seat).

[5th line wingnutt]

1) Because it's not my field of expertise, so I don't know the citations off the top of my head.

 

2) Academic press is the gold standard. Though, it's not the perfect standard--plenty of academic stuff gets published which frankly shouldn't, or should with major revisions. But if you have two books on the same subject and don't know anything about the publishers/authors, your best chance at getting an objective picture of how something actually works will be from the academic book. Most non-academic books are written by somebody with an agenda, wouldn't know an advanced statistical model if it took a dump on their chest, and use way too many anecdotes in an attempt to prove a point.

 

3) The system is meant to represent people, not a person. If you aren't getting represented perfectly that doesn't even begin to show that the system doesn't work. Also, the system is meant to represent voters...if people choose not to vote, and don't get represented, I don't see the problem.

 

4) If career politicians were not doing a good job, they wouldn't be career politicians--they'd lose. Most incumbents aren't safe because all incumbents are safe, they're safe because they do the things they need to do to be re-elected--namely, accurately representing their constituency.

 

1) OK, but then I would prefer you just say so. You dissed LPF's opinion and said there was research to back up your contention. He asked to see it and you sloughed him off. Maybe if you googled it you would find the article(s) you were referring to.

 

2) I disagree. Much of academic press is a bunch of regurgitated left wing horse hockey. Many of the learned journals are little better. The is approximately zero objectivity in the social sciences. Everyone has a preconceived view and it colors everything. There are plenty of statistical problems in academic work. If you think the academic press is gold check out the Sokal Hoax. And, yes, that is anecdotal. But anecdotes are useful. They can make us consider whether a pattern is really general or not. In the nonacademic press there are many books that are simply polemics. Generally I avoid them. But there are publishers that specialize in printing books that the academic press will not touch because of political correctness and other ideological reasons. If all you read is the academic press you mostly only get one side of the story, For my money you get the wrong side of most debates.

 

3) So I'm a person. Does that make me a people or not? In forty odd years I have had a few months where I had half a loaf, the rest of the time no bread at all. Why is our federal representation based on geography? With modern communications we could do much better. Approximately 20% of Americans are libertarianish and there is a grand total of 1 libertarianish congressman and 1 senator.

 

4) Again, horse hockey. The former congressman from my district was a liberal democrat in an R+3 district who got reelected 6 times. He did do the things he needed to do like running as a centrist when he was really a liberal, and covered by the local press. He finally lost last year thanks to making an utter fool of himself on video that went viral on YouTube.

[Drunkard]

You know what the big bang theory is? A theory. It is not proven. If the big bang theory is being taught, why can't the "theory" of Christianity be taught?

 

Gravity is also a theory but to answer your question it's because Theology is not science so it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom and all the intelligent design drivel does is throw the scientific method completely out the window. The fact that there are people that can even argue teaching the two side by side as equals with a straight face is a perfect example of why the US continues to rank worse and worse in science test scores among industrialized nations. If you want to teach any type of theology it belongs in a religion or theology course, but it should never be confused with science because it's not.

[Iron Crotch]

2) I disagree. Much of academic press is a bunch of regurgitated left wing horse hockey. Many of the learned journals are little better. The is approximately zero objectivity in the social sciences. Everyone has a preconceived view and it colors everything. There are plenty of statistical problems in academic work. If you think the academic press is gold check out the Sokal Hoax. And, yes, that is anecdotal. But anecdotes are useful. They can make us consider whether a pattern is really general or not. In the nonacademic press there are many books that are simply polemics. Generally I avoid them. But there are publishers that specialize in printing books that the academic press will not touch because of political correctness and other ideological reasons. If all you read is the academic press you mostly only get one side of the story, For my money you get the wrong side of most debates.

 

 

Wow, talk about broad, over-generalized statements.... speak to a specific journal perhaps (if you have evidence of such), or a field of study maybe... but to call "much" academic press "regurgitated left-wing horse hockey" is plainly ignorant. And to imply that there are no standards of academic rigor in any social science field is again ignorant... We mock what we do not understand...

 

It may shock you that many academic fields are largely apolitical (political science, obviously is an exception). For that matter, there is nothing to stop anyone, regardless of political leaning, from pursuing a PhD and publishing in top academic journals... I know of no fields that asks about a candidate's political affiliation as part of the application packet or interview process. In my field (which would be considered a social science), I don't have a clue how my colleagues lean politically, nor do I care.

[5th line wingnutt]

Wow, talk about broad, over-generalized statements.... speak to a specific journal perhaps (if you have evidence of such), or a field of study maybe... but to call "much" academic press "regurgitated left-wing horse hockey" is plainly ignorant. And to imply that there are no standards of academic rigor in any social science field is again ignorant... We mock what we do not understand...

 

It may shock you that many academic fields are largely apolitical (political science, obviously is an exception). For that matter, there is nothing to stop anyone, regardless of political leaning, from pursuing a PhD and publishing in top academic journals... I know of no fields that asks about a candidate's political affiliation as part of the application packet or interview process. In my field (which would be considered a social science), I don't have a clue how my colleagues lean politically, nor do I care.

 

My statement was a deliberate overreaction to TBPhd's characterization of the nonacademic press as "garbage". How about a lecture for him, too?

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

I am a libertarian at heart. Also, a rare combination ... social liberal, but a fiscal (small c) conservative.

 

I voted for Perot in '92. I liked him, but for me it was more of a protest vote that seemed to have some steam. I didn't think he could win, but thought that if he had enough support he may have influenced policy ... yes, I did live in a dream world then.

 

In '96 I voted for Dole. I blamed the whole Balkan mess on Clinton. He could have stopped it, but didn't.

 

In 2000 I held my nose and voted Gore. Still pissed at the Clinton / Gore administration concerning the Balkans, but hated GWB even more.

 

The last US election I was eligable to vote in was 2004. Didn't even bother.

 

As for third parties. In canada a third party is now official opposition and if the Liberals don't get their act together, or / and merge with the NDP, the NDP is our only real hope of unseating our version of GWB (Harper). If they don't no one will recognize Canada in a few years.

 

I have been voting Green in Canadian elections for some time now and if there ever was a referendum on proportional representation and a revamping of our Parlimentary system I would vote in favour of it.

Social liberal and fiscal conservative can coexist I would bet many people are more that line than hard for capital C Conservative and capital L Liberal.

[TrueBlueGED]

My statement was a deliberate overreaction to TBPhd's characterization of the nonacademic press as "garbage". How about a lecture for him, too?

Most non-academic books are written by somebody with an agenda, wouldn't know an advanced statistical model if it took a dump on their chest, and use way too many anecdotes in an attempt to prove a point.

 

Clearly I said they're garbage. Generally speaking, non-academic books are less objective than academic books, use far less rigorous research methods, and don't have to go through a difficult peer review process to get published. Then of course you have the fact that non-academic books are written to sell copies, whereas academic books are written to answer questions, and you introduce another source of bias. Academic books aren't perfect, and there certainly are some academics who push a liberal or conservative agenda (yes, there are conservative academics), but the vast majority of the stuff is seeking to answer questions. And even if an author does publish something politically skewed, it doesn't mean all of their work is. For example, Bartels has a book on the effect of presidents on the economy, which clearly has a liberal bent to it. But that doesn't mean his research on the consequences of the direct primary has a liberal bias. The chair of my department is a super conservative, but I don't think for a second his ideology influenced his research on the effects of presidential coattails on state legislative elections. The attitudinal model of Supreme Court decision making isn't remotely influenced by the authors' ideology. And so on.

 

 

1) OK, but then I would prefer you just say so. You dissed LPF's opinion and said there was research to back up your contention. He asked to see it and you sloughed him off. Maybe if you googled it you would find the article(s) you were referring to.

 

2) I disagree. Much of academic press is a bunch of regurgitated left wing horse hockey. Many of the learned journals are little better. The is approximately zero objectivity in the social sciences. Everyone has a preconceived view and it colors everything. There are plenty of statistical problems in academic work. If you think the academic press is gold check out the Sokal Hoax. And, yes, that is anecdotal. But anecdotes are useful. They can make us consider whether a pattern is really general or not. In the nonacademic press there are many books that are simply polemics. Generally I avoid them. But there are publishers that specialize in printing books that the academic press will not touch because of political correctness and other ideological reasons. If all you read is the academic press you mostly only get one side of the story, For my money you get the wrong side of most debates.

 

3) So I'm a person. Does that make me a people or not? In forty odd years I have had a few months where I had half a loaf, the rest of the time no bread at all. Why is our federal representation based on geography? With modern communications we could do much better. Approximately 20% of Americans are libertarianish and there is a grand total of 1 libertarianish congressman and 1 senator.

 

4) Again, horse hockey. The former congressman from my district was a liberal democrat in an R+3 district who got reelected 6 times. He did do the things he needed to do like running as a centrist when he was really a liberal, and covered by the local press. He finally lost last year thanks to making an utter fool of himself on video that went viral on YouTube.

 

1) I'm lazy. Happy?

 

2) Addressed that above. Simply put, you're wrong.

 

3) Sucks to be you, I guess? The system wasn't designed to represent every possible belief system, and it's not even possible for it to do so. I'm sorry you don't your views represented the way you want, but that's no indication the system doesn't work for the majority of people the majority of time--which is exactly what it's supposed to do.

 

4) Who?

 

 

Which brings me back to the reforms I'd like to see in the congress. I would agree to a compromise where electoral college electors are distributed based on congressional districts (1 per district, 2 for winning the state) That, combined with some expansion of the house (The House of Commons has over 600 members, surely we can make 1,000 work, if not my desired 3,000) would maintain some importance of regional politics in presidential elections, while reducing the disparity between the power held by a voter in Wyoming(550k people, 1 house seat) and that of a voter in Montana (900k people, 1 house seat).

 

You'll never get me on board with a huge legislature (I just don't think the institution would function well, even if there were representational benefits), but I definitely like the idea of some proportionality to the electoral college.

[LastPommerFan]

You'll never get me on board with a huge legislature (I just don't think the institution would function well, even if there were representational benefits), but I definitely like the idea of some proportionality to the electoral college.

 

What are your feelings on the unlimited debate principle in the Senate? Basically the system is set up, outside of the constitution, to create the necessity for a supermajority for all legislation.

[Guest Sloth]

Gravity is also a theory but to answer your question it's because Theology is not science so it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom and all the intelligent design drivel does is throw the scientific method completely out the window. The fact that there are people that can even argue teaching the two side by side as equals with a straight face is a perfect example of why the US continues to rank worse and worse in science test scores among industrialized nations. If you want to teach any type of theology it belongs in a religion or theology course, but it should never be confused with science because it's not.

 

When did I ever mention a science class or theology? If you want to talk about it being in a science class, I do believe a teacher should be allowed, not going into detail, to say there are other beliefs and theories of how things began and it's up to the students to choose what they want to believe. Sure, the students still have to learn and understand the scientific information provided to them to further develop their cognitive thinking, but they should not be taught in a manner as if the big bang theory is the only one that could be correct. Catch my drift?

[darksabre]

When did I ever mention a science class or theology? If you want to talk about it being in a science class, I do believe a teacher should be allowed, not going into detail, to say there are other beliefs and theories of how things began and it's up to the students to choose what they want to believe. Sure, the students still have to learn and understand the scientific information provided to them to further develop their cognitive thinking, but they should not be taught in a manner as if the big bang theory is the only one that could be correct. Catch my drift?

 

It's the only scientific theory of the universe's creation that we have. Until someone comes up with a better scientific theory, then the big bang theory is the correct one. Discussion of belief systems is in no way relevant to science learning.

[TrueBlueGED]

What are your feelings on the unlimited debate principle in the Senate? Basically the system is set up, outside of the constitution, to create the necessity for a supermajority for all legislation.

 

I don't have a problem with the principle because the system was designed to make change hard and to prevent majority tyranny, which I think has merit--wild swings in policy from one election to the next wouldn't be any more desirable than gridlock. That said, I think the number required for cloture is too high. I'd like to see it down to 55 or so.

 

When did I ever mention a science class or theology? If you want to talk about it being in a science class, I do believe a teacher should be allowed, not going into detail, to say there are other beliefs and theories of how things began and it's up to the students to choose what they want to believe. Sure, the students still have to learn and understand the scientific information provided to them to further develop their cognitive thinking, but they should not be taught in a manner as if the big bang theory is the only one that could be correct. Catch my drift?

 

I think the problem would be the substance. For example, I'm sure some religions would want to teach the Earth is 10,000 years old (or whatever), which is patently false.