Political "science"

>>8782860
First, "liberal" in America has a very different meaning than in the rest of the world.

Secondly, left-leaning ideologies and beliefs usually have much more theory than right-leaning ones. Which would explain why most people who study them appears to be leftists.

Finally, conservatives in the USA tend to have a severe anti-academic bias. This again explains why most educated people lean liberal.

>>8782860
could it be that personality traits associated with becoming a college professor overlap with traits typically found in liberals?

>nah

>>8782868
>>8782869

This. Professors are oftentimes idealists and prefer theory while not caring for a lucrative career. There is probably a hard intersectionality here between these traits and liberalism.

Their conservative counterparts are chasing money somewhere.

also, rejection of AGW in the US among the general population is fundamentally religious in nature. American protestants emphasize God's sovereignty above all else, so they literally do not believe that something bad could happen to the earth because God is in charge. They also think that global measures to mitigate carbon emissions will result in a tyrannical Communist (anti-Christian boogeyman) world government, and these fears have been stoked by the religious media for years now. Evangelical protestant America basically lives in its own world with alternative news, alternative science, alternative schools, alternative entertainment, etc.

>>8782876
>Professors are oftentimes idealists and prefer theory while not caring for a lucrative career.
>he thinks professors only income is their salary

>>8782860
Classical liberalism isn't modern liberalism.

Also, semantic drift.

Also, subjective political following.

How is this at all objective?

>>8782886
I forgot to add that you don't really see this in the European right, where environmentalism is more prevalent and the peculiar cancer that is American Evangelical Protestantism doesn't really exist. As an example, some French right-winger whose name escapes me wrote a book suggesting that European civilization should undergo degrowth (save for a few cities to preserve scientific and technological and progress) and revert everyone else to Traditional lifestyles in order to preserve the environment. You would never see this kind of stuff from American Christians.

>>8782887

If you're intelligent and ambitious any money you make in academia will be paltry compared to your potential in industry

>>8782902
if you're intelligent and ambitious you get "advisor" contracts from industry and cash in on your title while slaving away your phd students for research that doesn't even tries to hide that it only benefits the company you get money from

>>8782908

Well the title does say "1 in 12"

>>8782902
sad truth but I think people do it for the love

>>8782919
I bet if you told a lot of the younger PhDs working on Wall Street that they had an offer for an 80k/yr tenure track position at a decent university, they would quit their jobs on the spot.

don't know why it hasn't been said yet lol

liberals are smarter than conservatives

>>8782923

Yet we all know the cushy academic jobs are at an absolute premium and most profs are making a little more than minimum wage as adjuncts

>>8782926
It's not about maximizing pay per se but
>actually being able to do research
>having some semblance of job security
although adjunct pay is awful, no doubt

>>8782923
There aren't anywhere near as many of those positions as their are jobs on Wall Street trying to rub two dollars together to magic a third into existence. Our society values finance so much more than academia that we're willing to throw hundreds of billions of dollars at Wall Street but scoff at the idea of funding universities and see their budgets as nothing but a piggy bank to raid.

File: pepe tired of your shit.jpg (33KB, 575x556px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 575x556px

The whole idea behind conservatism is "people from the past knew better so we ought to keep their ways".

Which is really retarded when you think about it.

>>8782937

Honestly it's administrators and bloated bureaucracy that are currently the cancer in academia

they control the money, so naturally they create more of themselves like cancer

>>8782937
I don't completely disagree, but Universities waste a lot of money on administration that could be going to research. People just hire their friends to administrative jobs where they do nothing but make 500k/yr.

>>8782942

It's empirical. You have a certain context that produced a favorable outcome. A lot of "progress" involves radical change without much precedent that could in fact crash the whole system in pursuit of a lofty goal.

You don't have to be dogmatic to be a conservative, just more like a handler or damage control for the eternal progressive that seeks to constantly change everything.

>>8782950
American conservatism isn't even conservative in this sense (damage control) anymore, it is just pandering to religious fundamentalists.

>>8782954

Don't focus on one subset of a very large generalized group. They're losing a lot of pull in mainstream politics with the decline of religion here.

>>8782950
And how does that link with climate change denial? Fossil fuel industrial age was a massive "change" and "progress" that was unproven with regards to consequences (bad for climate as it turns out) yet conservitards guard it with their lives.

>>8782966

The implication of addressing "climate change" means you have to curb industry which sacrifices your competitive ability against other economies

It's an inconvenience that doesn't coalesce with their narrative much like the possibility that women and minorities are inherently dumber than white and Asian men and thus underperforming

>>8782966
Fossil fuels are part of the status quo the conservadicks were born into, for them it would be a change to change energy resources.

But that's all ideological. Practically what really drives them is that sweet, sweet oil money they get from oil companues and pandering to retarded coaltards (why would you work in coal if you have a functional brain?) for their votes.

>>8782972
>white and Asian men
>those two are equal
asian women have higher iq's than white men
asian women underperform only when compared to asian men

i can smell your racial agenda from here

>>8782982

I wasn't being detail specific for a reason, I'm not actually trying to shift the focus of the thread

>racial agenda

Sounds like "climate agenda" to me, all the same if you're a dogmatic tit with your head shoved up your ass

>>8782982
>everyone is equal
>racial agenda
hmm...

>>8782958
>Don't focus on one subset of a very large generalized group. They're losing a lot of pull in mainstream politics with the decline of religion here.
The religious right is winning big in America because they tend to live in rural America and the American electoral system makes rural votes worth more.

>>8782860
>problem is getting worse

I don't get it. What problem? Professors have always been that way. That is what academia is all about after all. If they were conservative, they'd not be sharing papers. "Science" would be more guild-like and they'd be hoarding information.

>>8782991

Religious issues took a strong seat to nationalist ones this past election cycle

One of the last real sticking points is abortion and that has become more of a moral debate than religious one, at least in debate

>>8782992
Lol, it's like saying "Literate people vastly outnumber illiterate ones and the ratio is getting WORSE!"

>>8782950
> It's empirical.

Not really. The idea that there is a single correct answer to the issue of organizing human society and that answer is a specific thing found in the past isn't really supported by evidence. That's the fundamental difference between the conservative worldview and the progressive worldview. Conservatives believe that there is a single correct answer found somewhere in the past that must be adhered to as closely as possible and that any deviation from that just moves you away from the correct answer. Progressives believe that good is a moving target, and that at every step of the way there are incrementally better answers stretching forward in the future.

This is one of the reasons why conservative politics are tied closely to religion while progressive politics are more popular in academia. The conservative worldview meshes well with the idea of timeless truth handed down from the divine, while the progressive worldview meshes better with the idea of new discoveries building upon each other. Neither of these are strictly empirical, but one of them is definitely closer to the way scientific research and development has played out over the years.

>>8782990
>>8782989
>difference between iq in genders is 5 points at most
>difference between asians and whites is about 7 points
do you see the problem with >>8782972

your own bullshit beliefs contradict themselves and basically you need to fuck off back to /pol/

>>8782994
>Religious issues took a strong seat to nationalist ones this past election cycle
Religion and nationalism are fundamentally intertwined for American Christians because many of them view America as God's chosen nation

>>8782994
The nationalist elements are tied in closely with the religious ones, as they often are. Religion is an easy way of carving out a national identity, and this election cycle was no exception. The idea that America is a nation of, by, and for white Christians emerged as the victor. Does Trump actually believe in anything to do with Christianity? No, but in nationalism that's not the point. The point is that it allows you to define who is a part of your tribe, and who is an enemy of the tribe.

>>8783003
forget about my beliefs
which race benefits from everyone being treated equally?

>>8783012
every1

>>8782994
Don't act like Muslims weren't a campaign issue that decided the election.

>>8783001

Is it a single answer, or a "best guess", approximation, "best we can do" kind of situation? I don't think many conservatives think they live in a perfect system, or than any system in the past was perfect. I think it's predicated on an understanding as perfection and ideal as impossible to attain without actually making things worse.

I wish we could define who we're calling liberal and conservative here because the American versions of both are really one huge amalgamation of competing interests that don't really adhere to the historical idea.

>>8783009
It's not just tribalism, many American Christians have a worldview where America is going to hell because of various types of immorality (abortion and homosexuality are the most prominent) and is persecuting Christians, and faces imminent punishment from God if it doesn't change its ways. Despite Trump obviously not being much of a Christian, many Christians adhere to a Providentialist viewpoint where Donald Trump is literally chosen by God to save Christians from persecution and crusade against Islam.

>>8783019

Muslim terrorism, which isn't very salient for any other nation group or religion around the world

It was the fact that Muslims are so fundamentalist that is distasteful, which isn't pro religion imo

>>8783024
That was what dominated the news.

In terms of what dominated policy: complete travel ban on several arab countries.

>>8782860
Huh, now I know why higher education is so shit most of the time.

>>8783029

Because there is literally no organization or vetting for backwards shitholes that are bordering on anarchy

"Abu the 15 year old refugee" could be "Assad the 28 year old IS extremist"

America doesn't have an obligation to potentially sacrifice security for wanton charity, the Nu Concept here is that rich countries are obligated to do that

>>8783021
>I don't think many conservatives think they live in a perfect system, or than any system in the past was perfect
Then what's the fucking point of conservatism? Just to be a contrarian to progressives for the hell of it?

>>8783024
Radical Muslims can be contained in the Middle East, in theory, and we have things like security services to keep an eye on them. Radical Christians are a lot more dangerous because they want to dismantle the entire welfare state and run it through churches instead, millions may die from losing healthcare, food stamps, etc.

>>8783036
>Then what's the fucking point of conservatism? Just to be a contrarian to progressives for the hell of it?
mostly, but it is mainly about either religion or ethnonationalism

>>8783036

Well it's clear they pick and choose which issues to focus on more so it isn't one big stonewall. Think about how (relatively) quietly gay marriage passed in the past decade. Most of Europe still hasn't caught up.

>>8783034
america is obligated to do that since it's america's fault
and saudi arabia or whatever

such countries should just get all the refugees

>>8783012
All of them. First, because it lessens the chance of a race war that will fuck over everyone.

Second, because racial inequality doesn't actually help most of the supposedly supreme race. Consider the pre-civil-war south. Were poor whites made better off by slavery, an institution of enforced racial inequality? No, they weren't. Slavery benefited only a tiny minority of whites, the planter aristocracy, because it turned the entire society into a pure contest of capital for buying more slaves, and the poor whites who could not afford to buy slaves were left with nothing to show for it. Most whites benefited from the abolition of slavery because it removed a massively unfair advantage that favored the planter aristocracy over poor whites.

>>8783034
I'm not going to argue whether it's right or wrong or productive/unproductive to society or whatever, however you can't deny Islam the religion wasn't a part of the arguments and debates during the campaign. Even if the politicians didn't say it explicitly, their constituents certainly had their ideas about Islam.

>>8783038

>Radical Muslims can be contained in the Middle East, in theory, and we have things like security services to keep an eye on them. Radical Christians are a lot more dangerous because they want to dismantle the entire welfare state and run it through churches instead, millions may die from losing healthcare, food stamps, etc.

wat

I'm pretty sure that one just boils down to "stop taxing me this much and giving it to someone else because I don't want that"

why are you conflating terrorism with common political debate, that's just loaded language

>>8783021
> Is it a single answer, or a "best guess", approximation, "best we can do" kind of situation?
Considering a big chunk of conservatives in the US believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and thus inherently perfect, I'd say the number of people who think that there is just a single correct answer is a lot larger than you might think. And even absent Christianity specifically, look at the near deification of the founding fathers. Suggesting that the Constitution as originally written was a flawed document is basically taboo in conservative circles, even though the Constitution as originally written permitted slavery.

>>8783036
Conservatives believe that most current systems are better than whatever they would be replaced with. Not that the current system is perfect.

The issue with conservative ideology is that its reactionary, meaning that eventually, grain by grain, the system erodes away.

Progressive right-wing ideology would be best. But current conservative culture is based on reactionary politics.

[math]\text{ }^{\color{#571da2}{\displaystyle\text{W}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{\color{#462eb9}{\displaystyle\text{h}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#3f47c8}{\displaystyle\text{y}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#3f62cf}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#437ccc}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#4b90bf}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#56a0ae}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#62ab99}{\displaystyle\text{t}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#71b484}{\displaystyle\text{h}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#82ba70}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#96bc5f}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#a9bd52}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#bcbb48}{\displaystyle\text{o}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#ceb541}{\displaystyle\text{n}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#dcab3c}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e39938}{\displaystyle\text{/}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e68033}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e3632d}{\displaystyle\text{c}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{\color{#de4227}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}\text{ }^{\color{#da2121}{\displaystyle\text{/}}}[/math]

>>8783034
what are you talking about there's definitely vetting

>>8783044

How was it not? The worst parts of Islam encourage martyrdom, oppression, and war against outsiders. That's not to say other religions don't have elements of this, but there is always going to be one relatively larger than the others, and that's currently Islam.

It clearly wasn't a total religious ban as they omitted the larger and more developed Muslim countries from the list. And left Iran for the lols as usual.

>>8783055
/pol/ == /sci/
deal with it

>>8783056

The existence of vetting =/= adequate vetting

If Somalia can't run a single unified government I doubt they are keeping accurate and thorough records

>>8783062
America does the vetting on people trying to get in

>>8783050

I don't know, as a "young conservative" I really don't experience this anymore among my peers. If you tried to cite the Bible I'm pretty sure you'd just get laughed out even if that's still valid for 60 year old Facebook grandpas.
Religious justification on a faith basis isn't valid for any ideology.

>>8783064

They need reliable information to work with to conduct vetting and background checks.

They don't put someone in a machine and brain scan them to gauge their history and intentions.

>>8783048
>I'm pretty sure that one just boils down to "stop taxing me this much and giving it to someone else because I don't want that"
no, the whole point is that things like state healthcare or food stamps are basically idolatrous - they step on the toes of what should be the responsibility of churches and lead to the disintegration of religious values. When the welfare state was invented there was a lot of talk about this from religious thinkers. There is of course a "fuck my neighbor, he is a leech" element of this because American Christianity mixes the Bible with Ayn Rand and taking benefits is viewed as sinful.

>why are you conflating terrorism with common political debate, that's just loaded language
so bombings by radical Muslims is terrorism, but when radical Christian billionaires try to destroy food stamps or healthcare for poor people, which they are in position to do, it's not terrorism?

>>8783066
Your peers don't give as many votes as the people who actually do that. Guess who politicians will pander to?

>>8783066
>I don't know, as a "young conservative" I really don't experience this anymore among my peers.
Do you live in a major city?

>>8782972
>The adoption of cars will curb our buggy whip-based economy! The sky is falling!
Who is the "alarmist" again?

>>8783082

Yes, also about to graduate from a large school

>>8783078

Regardless I've noticed a decline in religious justification for many issues, Trump put a gay man on stage at the RNC which I'm pretty sure is 100% unprecedented whether the media wanted to formally acknowledge that or not it's a huge step in a positive direction for consistent debate.

>>8782860
>No wonder the "climate change theory" is pushed so hard.

>>8783050
>Considering a big chunk of conservatives in the US believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and thus inherently perfect, I'd say the number of people who think that there is just a single correct answer is a lot larger than you might think.

I believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God and perfect for what it is intended to do, I also do not believe it is intended as a science text, and taking the metaphors and parables used to teach spiritual truths as literal teaching in cosmology and biology is an error. We cool?

>And even absent Christianity specifically, look at the near deification of the founding fathers. Suggesting that the Constitution as originally written was a flawed document is basically taboo in conservative circles, even though the Constitution as originally written permitted slavery.

Straw man -- Conservatives believe that you should follow the Constitution as written, or, if you find a part of it that you think is wrong or ill-suited to modern times, you should change it through the amendment process provided by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as opposed to just disregarding what the foundational law of the land says. The disadvantage of just disregarding what it says is that, once you do that, you do not have a foundational law at all in any real sense. That removes the restraints the Constitution places on governments' ability to infringe the rights retained by the people. We cool still?

>>8783084
But he also put a strict ban on immigrants from countries based on the religion they traditionally practiced.

>>8783087
> as opposed to just disregarding what the foundational law of the land says.
You mean exactly what conservatives do with the fourth amendment?

>>8783034
There has never been a terrorist attack from any of these refugees. You're delusional.

>>8783092

Your assertion is contradicted by the fact that he "forgot" to ban 75% of the Muslim world

If you look at it rationally you'll see he put a temporary ban on places with the least amount of infrastructure and/or economic value for the US

>>8783092
anti-islam nowadays is just a word for being anti brown caucasian
nobody actually dislikes bosnians or tatars

>>8783097

>what was the OSU attack a few months ago from a Somalian

>>8783098
He tried to ban travel from Iraq, one of our supposed allies in fighting against ISIS, in the middle of our military trying to cooperate with the Iraqis.

Also, if it's so important that it's temporary, how much good is it actually going to do?

>>8783098
> economic value for the US
i.e. not having Trump specific business interests.
Iran and others are not shit holes.

We should be trading more with them to try influence their politics through McDonalds and the like, not less.

And the narrative he spoke of was to reduce terrorists from entering the country, when some of the worst terrorist countries weren't even banned.

> When goods stop crossing borders, armies will

>>8783100
How many people were killed?

>>8783110
holy shit you're stupid

what exactly is wrong with 'reducing the immigration to minimum from x number countries' without calling it 'muh muslim ban, because fuck muslims and american muslims too'

afaik obama did that, kinda

>>8783113
nobody, but a dozen people were injured
>wow who cares
maybe someone should stab someone you care about, you fucking sperg
I'm so glad you aren't old enough to vote

>>8783116
Then would you kindly explain why banning travel from a nation that you're trying to work with is a good thing?

>>8783113

>we need a death count of X for this to be counted

>>8783110

As a new President I'm sure he needs time to sort out his idea of a thorough system so the temporary part of 120 days makes sense

>>>>/pol/

File: sigh.jpg (3KB, 127x131px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 127x131px

>>8782860
>having an ideology
Ideology = bias
>being a scientist with a bias

>>8783112

Iran isn't, the others are very much so

And we all know why Iran was banned, we've been dogging Iran for decades now

>>8783134
He proposed this literally over a year ago. Back in December of 2015. He couldn't come up with something in that time?

>>8783143

He was probably busy campaigning for the Presidency, I don't know

Why do you think your terms are perfect, would you prefer a permanent ban?

>>8783143
The Republicans have been saying they wanted to repeal and replace Obamacare for seven years, but only got around to actually creating a replacement plan last month. You're assuming a level of foresight that Trump and the republicans clearly do not have.

>>8782942
Modern conservatism =/= what was conservatism when the term was invented. Conservatism by that definition is like Metternich in the 19th century Austrian Empire, modern conservatism in the US is a continuation of small government types at its base who have always been a political faction, literally from the minute the country was founded. For example, federalists v anti-federalists in the Articles of Confederation era, a conservative at that time would have been wanting for aristocracy and probably with federalists if he/she didn't leave the country.

>>8783145
I would prefer some honesty when it comes to public policy. If he wants to say that the ban is vitally important, he should stop hiding behind the fact that it's temporary. And if he wants it to be temporary, he should quit acting like it's actually going to do very much in the way of stopping actual terrorists.

>>8783158

I don't think he's been dishonest about this point at all and as you said a Muslim world travel ban has been in the works but this was simply one issue among many. People knew about and voted for this, national bans are nothing new to this country.

I hate that immigration went from being something people considered a privilege to grant to others and instead turned into some kind of high moral obligation to everyone.

>>8782860
Muh women studies and liberals arts degree

https://youtu.be/gZo2qR8x_n8
Idealism instead of studying is destroying academia

>>8783150
> modern conservatism in the US is a continuation of small government types
Yet modern conservatives don't actually practice small government. When they cut spending on something like the EPA, they just turn around and pump all of that money into the military so government spending remains the same.

>>8783120
>muh refugees are dangerous
>see one guy was a terrorist and injured people
Pathetic

>>8783133
>we need to call refugees dangerous when they aren't

>>8783034
It's in our best interest to shelter the refugees, because ISIS is good at recruiting. Can't recruit what ain't there.

>>8783194
I never said anything about whether or not they still were real small gov. I was refuting the fact that whichever poster I replied to that conservatism in its current usage isn't looking to the past for answers not status quo.

File: 1432547112769.gif (999KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x251px

>>8782860
>it also shows that the problem is getting worse
>the problem
>people holding their own believes and voting how they see fit is a problem in a Democracy

>>8783195
>refugee attacks people because he's a dangerous extremist
>wanting to prevent dangerous extremists from entering the country is somehow a questionable motive
?????

>>8783242
>being this afraid
I though you had guns to protect yourself

>>8783251
A risk taker huh?
Drink one gallon of water with one drop of Ebola

>>8782886

I don't think you've actually spent time in American Christian communities. As a person who has been entrenched in them for most of my life, and has worked with them for international relief efforts, the things you're describing are significantly exaggerated. While they certainly do exist and pockets of stereotypical Christian fundamentalism exist everywhere to say that the entire evengelical protestant community in America lives in its own world is a gross misrepresentation of the current fractured nature of American Christian communities.

US church attendance have been in decline for years now. And a large percentage of them have stayed afloat by giving ground to secular ideas much to the chagrin of fundementalists. The issue of AGW is also not by any means agreed upon between person to person. And the people who ate discussing AGW are, by and large, laymen who are making judgement calls based purely on the information given to them by people they trust. For instance the majority of younger Christian communities are overwhelmingly environmentalist as they are typically composed of young college graduates, and in my experience take little to no issue with the commonly contentious issue of evolution.

>>8782901

You are demonstrating complete ignorance of Christian communities in the US. Catholics tend to be deeply concerned with environmental issues, Methodists as well, Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, and ecumenical all are typically concerned with environmental issues. Furthermore Mennonite and Amish communities are relatively small, only about half a million people, but they are quite literally the traditionalist communities you've described.

I don't want to come across as though I'm defending the anti-science worldview that many Conservative Christians hold, but I do want to stress that that is a stereotype that does not accurately portray US Christian communities as a whole. And clinging to that perception is not doing good.

File: allmen.jpg (51KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1600x900px

>>8783264
not him, but i love this argument
i love analogies, it's my favorite thing in the world

>>8783270
#notallamericanreligiousconservatives

>>8783271
It is fun
Go to the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq) and "act" flamboyant gay and drink alcohol.

>>8782886
Where are you getting the sources for your claims?

>>8782886
>also, rejection of AGW in the US among the general population is fundamentally religious in nature.

rejection of AGW is a direct result of a sensationalist media and doomsday prophesizing crackpots. when there are clickbait articles saying that we're all going to be underwater in 10 years, yet those things never come to pass of course there are going to be people who become skeptical.

more importantly, rejection of AGW has much to do with the fact that many americans do not feel it is the US's responsibility to be at the forefront of any kind of "green" movement, especially when it could negatively impact them in an economic fashion.

the US is tired. tired of being the worlds police, tired of giving handouts to other countries when we have our own troubles at home, tired of having to be the ones to stick it to its middle class for the sake of the rest of the world.

europeans like to wave their finger at the US from their ivory tower full of free education and healthcare without realizing that its the US who indirectly subsidizes those things via its protectionist foreign policy.

that is what Trump capitalized on, and thats how he won.

>>8783055
post code pls

>>8783264
I remember when Trump was panicking in fear of Ebola, demanding a total ban on travel from Africa. People actually in the know pointed out that such a ban would have just got in the way, but no, he didn't care. And of course it turned out that the actual experts were right and Trump was wrong. Ebola was a serious concern if you lived in West Africa, but panic in the US helped no one and you were much more likely to be killed by the flu. Similarly, ISIS is a serious concern if you live in Syria or Iraq, but in the US you're more likely to be killed by lightning or by a toddler.

>>8783242
I didn't question the motive of not allowing terrorists into the country, I explained that refugees are highly unlikely to be terrorists.

>The Holocaust was wrong
>So you disagree with the motive of saving German people??? You monster!
Typical /pol/yard logic.

>>8783325
> I remember when Trump was panicking in fear of Ebola

I don't, because that never happened.

>>8783317
>rejection of AGW is a direct result of a sensationalist media and doomsday prophesizing crackpots.
Yes I 100% agree. The reflection of AGW is due to sensationalist media who make up conspiracies like climate-gate and alarmist crackpots who claim that mitigating AGW will "destroy the economy." Oh and don't forget the people who just make up idiotic strawmen like "the media claimed we'll be underwater in 10 years" and then can't provide a source. But will repeat this claim over and over even after they know it's false. Scumbag.

>>8783343
https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/495379061972410369?lang=en

>>8783343
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/495379061972410369?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fjs.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-stat%2Fadvertising%2Fpseudo-static%2Fremote.html%3F1490234009582

File: Trump Ebola 1.jpg (33KB, 620x359px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 620x359px

>>8783343

>>8783359
>>8783363
rekt

>>8783325
Except for that one guy that lied about having it and came to America only to die from it while blaming America and get his nurse infected and have whole blocks under quarantine because he vomited blood in the streets

>>8783343
https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/495182739310936064?lang=en

>EBOLA REEEEEEEEEE
Drumpfy is a big autistic baby

File: Trump Ebola 2.jpg (37KB, 636x377px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 636x377px

>>8783343
>>8783367

File: Trump Ebola 3.png (187KB, 1246x650px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1246x650px

>>8783343
>>8783373

>>8783369
>except for
It's really interesting how /pol/tards will contort themselves into knots to defend an orange clown.

File: Trump Ebola 4.png (40KB, 565x321px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 565x321px

>>8783369
One guy who lied came here and died of Ebola. Okay. How does that justify Trump losing his shit over Ebola and demanding that we block American citizens from coming back into the country for treatment? The fact is that the experts knew that just getting emotional and losing your shit like Trump did wasn't going to help, and so they didn't institute a travel ban. Instead of looking at the facts and listening to the experts, Trump panicked.

File: Trump Ebola 5.jpg (29KB, 498x187px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 498x187px

>>8783343
>>8783382

>>8783378
You're not disproving me
And making excuses

>>8783382
It's justified because Ebola is contagious and the American missionary and Nurse were barred from entering the United States until they could be sure that it was under control.

File: 563761-d4de3adc-96ea-11e4-985a-7acd3b83aa30.jpg (60KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 650x488px

>>8783337
>I explained that refugees are highly unlikely to be terrorists.
But they sure to support them

https://youtu.be/nP0XTvuRycY

>>8783382
> The fact is that the experts knew that just getting emotional and losing your shit like Trump did wasn't going to help, and so they didn't institute a travel ban.
False equivalence. In this case, the experts agree that a travel ban is going to help protect the country against terrorism, and it's the liberals who are being mindlessly emotional in their outrage against it.

>>8783392
precisely

this is part of the reason we need to genocide brown people in our countries

>>8783390
> It's justified because Ebola is contagious
And you think all the people at CDC didn't know that? They knew a hell of a lot more than Trump did, and their conclusion was that a travel ban would have made things worse, not better, because it would have hindered the campaign to control the outbreak in west Africa, thus increasing the likelihood of it eventually spreading beyond the effected countries. Trump was a complete and total ignoramus shouting about something that he had no knowledge of.

> the American missionary and Nurse were barred from entering the United States until they could be sure that it was under control.
They were placed in quarantine, which is very different from the travel ban that Trump was demanding.

I like how one guy changes the topic from OP's subject to Trump and dumps his Trump posts

>>8783406
> CDC
> knowing anything about anything
The CDC is nothing but a bureaucratic shithole. Trump had common sense, which put him so far above the CDC it isn't even funny.

>>8783406
>They knew a hell of a lot more than Trump did, and their conclusion was that a travel ban would have made things worse, not better, because it would have hindered the campaign to control the outbreak in west Africa, thus increasing the likelihood of it eventually spreading beyond the effected countries. Trump was a complete and total ignoramus shouting about something that he had no knowledge of.
Wrong, they were in support of the travel ban because it would spread Ebola all over the world and put people needlessly at risk.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/21/us-limited-ebola-travel-restrictions-west-africa?espv=1

>They were placed in quarantine, which is very different from the travel ban that Trump was demanding.
They were placed in quarantine until deemed fit to travel as they were American citizens.

Obama went through with the travel ban

>>8783407
I'd say it's a case study of what the thread is about. Conservatives just don't give a damn about what the experts have to say, they dismiss anyone with knowledge about a subject as being corrupted by liberalism. Climate scientists saying that AGW is a thing? Clearly just liberal bias at work. Doctors saying that a travel ban is a bad idea against Ebola? Clearly they don't know anything, we should trust Trump instead.

>>8783422
Oh hey
It's anti-trump poster with his appeal to authority and question begging epithet

>>8783417
> Obama went through with the travel ban
No, he required that people go through airports that had screening. If you actually read the article you posted you would have noticed that

> New guidelines will force travellers from affected countries to fly via US airports with screening procedures in place

Again, not a travel ban, since they were still allowed to travel to the US.

>>8783355
are you seriously saying there hasn't been any sensationalism or scaremongering from proponents of AGW?

How do we save /pol/ ?

File: 16188185.jpg (31KB, 218x218px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 218x218px

>>8783318
>right click
>show as tex

>>8783431
Travel ban from places that had Ebola outbreaks.

If other parts of the country didn't have Ebola they were screened.

It's not hard to grasp

>>8783429
So listening to doctors who have actual training, knowledge, and experience on the subject instead of Trump when it comes to health is just an appeal to authority?

>>8783439
The same doctors that said Ebola is very contagious and would put people exposed to it needlessly at risk?

>>8783438
Again, read the article. There wasn't a ban on travel from the effected countries because there weren't direct flights from those countries to begin with. They just added screening procedures for people who recently came from those countries.

> The limited move comes after days of mounting political pressure to introduce outright travel bans on such passengers entering the US, but will instead make sure all recent travellers to Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea are subject to basic tests for fever and face questioning on possible exposure to the disease.

> Five US airports – New York’s JFK, Newark, Dulles, Atlanta and Chicago – now have the additional Ebola screening protocols in place, which are designed to supplement exit screenings that take place in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea,

> There are no direct flights from these three countries into the US, but passengers who have been there in the last 21 days and travel through foreign airports will now be required to first enter the US through one of these five airports. They already handle more than 90% of such travel, according to US officials.

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-03-27 08:56:54 Post No.8783456
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-03-27 08:56:54 Post No.8783456 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/118561011