The state of the GOP

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The models are based, largely, on speculative assumptions. That's where the skepticism comes from.

No, that is not how they work. Models are tuned to existing data to replicate complex problems and then are used to make projections. Are some assumptions involved? Of course. But most good models don;t just start today and look forward blindly. Note they language in the video; trends are important here, not exact dates. Like I said reasonable people can disagree on where/how fast we are headed, and exact dates are squirrelly given the short-term variability in climate/weather patterns.

As an aside, many of the climate models made 20 years ago have been compared to measurements since then, and the scare part for at least SLR, which I am most well-versed in, is that we are trending towards the higher predictions.... Rahstorf et al out of Germany have numerous peer-reviewed papers on this.

Good primer here:

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No, that is not how they work. Models are tuned to existing data to replicate complex problems and then are used to make projections. Are some assumptions involved? Of course. But most good models don;t just start today and look forward blindly. Note they language in the video; trends are important here, not exact dates. Like I said reasonable people can disagree on where/how fast we are headed, and exact dates are squirrelly given the short-term variability in climate/weather patterns.

As an aside, many of the climate models made 20 years ago have been compared to measurements since then, and the scare part for at least SLR, which I am most well-versed in, is that we are trending towards the higher predictions.... Rahstorf et al out of Germany have numerous peer-reviewed papers on this.

Good primer here:

Bryan, I love nature, and I spend a lot more time in the woods, deep in the woods, than most.

You cannot tell me that the global freezing scare was one article. It wasn't. I remember very clearly.

If those models are accurate, why are none of the predictions coming true? Global warming changed very abruptly to 'climate change'.

And why isn't it valid to ask why Al Gore lives the way he does, if he believes what he claims to believe?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bryan, I love nature, and I spend a lot more time in the woods, deep in the woods, than most.

1. You cannot tell me that the global freezing scare was one article. It wasn't. I remember very clearly.

2. If those models are accurate, why are none of the predictions coming true? Global warming changed very abruptly to 'climate change'.

3. And why isn't it valid to ask why Al Gore lives the way he does, if he believes what he claims to believe?

1. Read what I posted, the science clearly was majority warming not cooling in the 70's

2. Many are. I pointed out specific SLR models that are 'coming true' Watch the video. Learn something about the models.

3. Ask away. Gore became the right's face of climate in many regards. He is also a hypocrite in many on the climate change side of things. Have I EVER on this forum pointed to Gore regarding climate change, EVER?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

What I find really ironic is that the scientific process shares much more with conservative thinking than does liberalism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe but it's been clearly shown that the climate alarmists ignored or corrupted scientific process, falsified data and were flat out disingenuous about many claims and promises to serve their agenda which is probably more in line with modern liberalism/progressivism

[Jim in CT]

Bryan, mankind is putting more CO2 in the atmosphere, that is beyond dispute. What the effect of that will be, is far from settled. We have no idea what ability the atmosphere has to harmlessly absorb more CO2, we don't know how the ocean fits into that equation...all the models make speculative (wildly speculative) assumptions about such things.

It's vital we keep studying and examining. But it's not settled science, far from it. If it was, your side would not have been forced to re-name the issue from global warming to climate change. Oh, the Earth isn't warming the way we thought? Let's just call it climate change, that way, no matter what happens, we can say we are correct!

[detbuch]

Here is the opinion of a "right wing conservative" on the state of the GOP:

http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/31/t...tm_campaign=nl

[Nebe]

Great comments in that article
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Yes, let's ponder the state of the GOP...Last time I checked, the GOP absolutely demolished the Dems less than one year ago in the last national election. It was an historic drubbing. Am I remembering that wrong? The GOP currently has both houses of congress, a majority of governorships, and a majority of state legislatures. And I'm supposed to believe the party is in tatters because Bill Maher and Rachael Maddow desperately want me to believe that?

There are a lot of things I wish the GOP did differently at the national level. And given certain demographic shifts, the GOP may find itself struggling unless they make progress with the Hispanic vote. But that's not unrealistic, as Bush did fine with Hispanics. Enter Marco Rubio.

[Nebe]

Take a look at the approval rating for congress and the senate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Take a look at the approval rating for congress and the senate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, do you know what congressional approval ratings were before the GOP took over both houses? Lousy. Approval ratings for Congress have been in the toilet for a long time and for good reason.

You are correct, people are fed up with Congress, because they don't do what they are supposed to do. That's why approval ratings are low for Congress, and that's also why Trump resonates with those who are frustrated.

Frustration with Congress certainly isn't unique to the GOP. If it was, how can you possibly explain what happened in November 2014?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Frustration with Congress certainly isn't unique to the GOP. If it was, how can you possibly explain what happened in November 2014?

The Dems had many more contested seats up for election.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Dems had many more contested seats up for election.

The entire house of representatives was up for re-election, and the GOP made big gains there, so your theory doesn't explain what happened in the House. But you do have a good point about the Senate, the Dems had some seats up in states that usually lean right, and without Obama on the ticket, they were vulnerable. And in 2016, the GOP will have many more seats up for re-election, but I don't know ho wmany are truly vulnerable. I don't hear a lot of talk that the Dems expect to re-take the senate, at least not yet. But I would think it's a good opportunity for them.

[PaulS]

What hurt the Reps. was they had some bruising primaries. Absent those they would have prob. won more seats. I think they have worked hard over the last 4 years so that doesn't happen again.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What hurt the Reps. was they had some bruising primaries. Absent those they would have prob. won more seats. I think they have worked hard over the last 4 years so that doesn't happen again.

Hadn't heard that, good thinking, you may well be right.

What hurt the GOP (what kept them from doing even better) was a few races where the tea party or libertarian party entered third party candidates, handed a few races to the Dems. That is something that the GOP needs to get a handle on, right quick.

People make fun of the GOP because of Trump (I remember when Howard Dean was the Democratic frontrunner in 2004, until he blew a gasket on national TV and handed the nomination to Kerry). I have to say, I think Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Walker, Jindal are all very serious and impressive, to me.

Do you think Biden is going to run? My wild guess is that if the party feels Hilary will struggle in the general election (I think she'd win the primary against Bernie by a landslide), Biden will get in, and he's going to pick Apache Chief as his running mate. I want to like Biden, but he led the despicable attacks against Clarence Thomas. I'm also, as you could probably guess, not a huge fan of people who say they are Catholic yet also say they are rabidly pro-abortion. You cannot be both of those things. But his decision on whether or not to enter, is fascinating to me.

[justplugit]

Meantime in a mommuth poll in Iowa today, Ben Carson has tied Trump 23% with
Carly Farina gaining 10%. Pretty good indication people are tired of the same old same old Washington politicians. With the conservative, well liked Ben Carson and the CEO business history of Carly sounds like a good team.

Too soon to tell,but beats the 3 busted valises the Dems are offering.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, let's ponder the state of the GOP...Last time I checked, the GOP absolutely demolished the Dems less than one year ago in the last national election. It was an historic drubbing. Am I remembering that wrong? The GOP currently has both houses of congress, a majority of governorships, and a majority of state legislatures. And I'm supposed to believe the party is in tatters because Bill Maher and Rachael Maddow desperately want me to believe that?

There are a lot of things I wish the GOP did differently at the national level. And given certain demographic shifts, the GOP may find itself struggling unless they make progress with the Hispanic vote. But that's not unrealistic, as Bush did fine with Hispanics. Enter Marco Rubio.

So your team gets a great general manager, and he manages to entice a lot of superstars to join the team. And there is great joy in Mudville as the prospects for the coming season are fabulous considering how your team has filled positions with the best.

Opening day . . . hurray . . . look at our roster . . . let's kick butt all the way to the pennant.

OK . . . so the first few games got away from us . . . but it'll take a little time for the new team to jell. OK . . . All Star break and were in the middle of the pack . . . actually near the bottom . . . but we'll catch fire, no doubt, with all that talent, and tear through the rest of the season like the juggernaut we are . . . should be . . . with all that talent.

Pukes . . . they're a bunch a prima donna pukes . . . season down the toilet and all we got are an over-paid bunch of loafers . . . get the bums outta here . . .

The point of filling all those electoral positions with Republicans is not merely to fill them, but to do what was promised in order to get elected.

If, instead, all those political superstars are content merely to hold power, and afraid to lose it if they actually not only rock the boat, but steer it in the opposite direction that those they defeated coursed it, and prefer to safely stay the course . . . then . . . it's like mighty Casey has struck out.

All those victories you point to have put the Republicans in the precarious position of having to deliver the goods they promised us. If they don't . . . the team may have to get rebuilt.

So far, they seem rather anemic. Trump appeals because he appears to be strong. And he scares the Republican establishment. Their cowardice in not using the power of the purse to block what they promised to get rid of, and letting all the crap that Obama and the Dems have put on us become entrenched, on the one hand, and the fear of Trump on the other, is not attractive. There is a small positive indication, because they fear Trump, and the lackluster showing of their preferred candidates in the polls, that actual "conservatives" such as Cruz may not only be acceptable, but a buffer against Trump's destruction of their wishy-washy Dem-lite path to maintaining power.

[Jim in CT]

Detbuch, believe me I hear you. Lots of things I wish they did differently (better). They aren't nearly as effective as they could/should be. But what I was responding to, was the notion that we're all a bunch of extremist kooks like Trump, and that we're becoming irrelevant. Lawrence O'Donnell said 2 nights ago that the fact that Trump is in the lead, is evidence of "why Republican can't win any elections anymore". This guy has his own show, and he says something that demonstrably false (again, remember last November?) and no one challenges him.

Our candidates have not performed as expected. Our agenda is still superior, in every way agendas can be compared, to the democratic agenda, at least at the national level.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Detbuch, believe me I hear you. Lots of things I wish they did differently (better). They aren't nearly as effective as they could/should be. But what I was responding to, was the notion that we're all a bunch of extremist kooks like Trump, and that we're becoming irrelevant. Lawrence O'Donnell said 2 nights ago that the fact that Trump is in the lead, is evidence of "why Republican can't win any elections anymore". This guy has his own show, and he says something that demonstrably false (again, remember last November?) and no one challenges him.

Our candidates have not performed as expected. Our agenda is still superior, in every way agendas can be compared, to the democratic agenda, at least at the national level.

There are "agendas" and there are, as Spence might say, "systems." Agendas can be a written list, adhered to or not. Or they can be a litany of spoken promises, adhered to or not. Agendas which are not adhered to are basically lies. Deceptions which amount to no more than ideological holograms meant to attract votes.

Of our two main parties, the Democrats are more faithful to their agenda than are the Republicans. Which is not to say that the Democrats are more honest. Though their agenda is obvious, they have had to lie (less and less over time) that it is an American agenda. One that is good for notions of freedom, free trade, historic American values, and supports our Constitution and its founding principles. The Progressive agenda, from its beginning, has been the opposite of all those things. It has actually been an expansion of European socialism functioning through a copy of nineteenth century European administrative statism. After having to lie for votes the past few decades, the true nature of Progressivism is now more open for view. The quasi-American leaders of the party are more and more giving way to its far left proponents. And it is openly so. There are no more Scoop Jacksons or Sam Nunns in the party. Even Joe Lieberman does not fit in.

The Republican establishment leaders do not oppose the Democrat statists in reality. Just by promises. Verbal holograms meant to get votes. Give us the House, and things will change. Well, then, we now also need for you to give us the Senate. All right then . . . ok . . . now we also need for you to give us the Presidency. THEN things will change. Maybe. But really? That may depend more on the "system" than the promised agenda. As attested to by the "far right conservative" who is forecasting the death of the Republican Party:

http://www.redstate.com/2015/09/01/n...tm_campaign=nl

That may not be all bad. Just as Whigs were transformed into the Republicans more on an "agenda" basis rather than a systemic one, the current Republican Party can be transformed or replaced again by crushing the "system" and adhering to an American Constitutional agenda.

So far, a Ted Cruz candidacy and election would be a major step in that direction. If he is as incorruptible as he seems