Other than Jon Huntsman, I’m hard-pressed to name a reasonable Republican. I’m sure they’re out there. I just don’t know where to look.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Republicans, Thought of the day |
Author
Recent Comments
The Sauciest Duck on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Michael on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Stephen Moreton on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Merry Christmas Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Mele Kalikimaka somdeblahiriyahoocoi… on Thought of the day Michael on Wuhan virus and one last… Quick correction | F… on The A-Unicornist, Bernie Bro… The A-Unicornist, Be… on When I know I’ve beat… Somdeb Lahiri on Thought of the day
For the Sake of Science 
Reasonable in liberal parlance means: holds the same or substantially similar political views to the liberal in question.
It generally means not denying science and facts and junk.
I have a fact for you: Life has improved, for the average American, in the past thirty years.
Throw that fact into a group of Democrats and watch reasonableness break out.
“I’m hard-pressed to name a reasonable Republican. I’m sure they’re out there.”
Yes they are. Both of them.
Being better off today than we were yesterday does not justify certain policies or even mean that things are good enough.
Hortensio makes a great point. Liberals are not the party of reality you make them out to be, as they stand by the bogus claim that people’s standard of living stagnated over 30 years. His point was not the policies, but the reality.
The left is the party of west cost spirtualism, veganism, opposition to GMOs, emotional arguments to economic questions. You are noticing that the left is the party of most scientists, but that doesn’t mean most members of the left are scientists.
The claim is more often that the standard of living has not improved as it should have for everyone. And wages have been stagnating over the past several years, even before the recession – except for the wealthy (who don’t seem to want to create any jobs with all that cash – weird).
That’s not the claim. The claim is wages have been flat since the 1970s, which only happens if you misunderstand the data and ignore non-monetary forms of compensation.
That is not the general claim. Moreover, you’re ignoring all the tax benefits companies gain by transferring pay from hourly and salary wages into various benefits. The past 30 years has been an unfair boom for the richest Americans. Our system is gamed towards them; the massive wealth gain accumulated over the past several decades has not gone to those who have actually been earning it.
Like, down with the system, man?
I added you to the blogroll because I don’t expect you to be a troll.
Fair enough. Sorry for stepping over the bounds.