I can discuss most subjects here with you and most everybody here without the kind of shenanigans gonzo gets up to
IMO gonzo is single handedly making this forum a toxic and frustrating platform for discussion
Apart from the slam poetry
Only two doofa droppings, this morning. A marginal improvement in doofa behavior.
You are responsible for your own frustration, not anyone else.
That word loses meaning, when used in exaggerated fashion.
Thank you.
Nope, not at all.
Speaking of off topic.
Somehow, I mostly disagree with that.
I never once claimed the Greens were corrupt lmao a political party doing things that are counter productive or destructive does not require them to be corrupt. The Greens likely truly believe they are/were doing the right thing.
The energy bind Germany finds itself in now us purely down to high level political corruption
I am just establishing the non corrupt credentials of the German Greens
Exactly what Green Party policies are you referring to, and how have they impacted on the current situation?
The nuclear phase out. âGreenâ or âsustainableâ non fossil fuel and non nuclear energy generation is basically a scam for anything larger than a commune. Which is why they are still buying Russian LNG and looking for ways to avoid or ease sanctions on Russia.
The Greens have been part of the federal government during two periods: first as a junior partner to the Social Democrats (SPD) from 1998 to 2005, and again with the SPD and the FDP following the 2021 German federal election.
Whilst the nuclear phase out was a Green policy it is an overwhelming popular policy goal amongst the majority German voters, and comitment to the policy remained in the 16 years the Greens were out of federal decision/policy making, for this reason
Is this âfreind/enemy distinctionâ thing you go on about affecting your objectivity, I wonder?
And since nuclear in Germany only produced approx 15% of the countryâs energy needs, Germany would essentially be in the same bind if the nuclear sector was running at full pre phase out levels
What have I written that was objectively incorrect?
I believe Iâve written it in an argument here before but frankly the majority, who are not politically engaged, donât form policy opinions and then impose them on the government through the vote they have most of their policy opinions imposed on them by power. That is, if you manage to gain power to impose your policy preferences the majority of the governed, that is the majority of people who are politically unengaged (and should be politically unengaged, this idea that a political system should require all citizens at all times to be engaged politically to the point they become mentally ill is absurd), will simply adopt that policy preference.
The most recent and clear example in the US was gay marriage. Until Obergefell in 2015 the majority in the US were not pro gay marriage. Even Barack Obama was not pro gay marriage when asked. California, the most culturally liberal state in the entire country and a power center for Democratic and liberal politics, voted overwhelmingly against legalizing gay marriage via referendum (and this breaks along interesting racial lines). But the elite consensus was pro gay marriage and it continued to get pushed despite Democracy rejecting it.
And just like when I described our de jure and de facto political system to gregaquaman in the other thread, mainstream âconservativesâ are now trailing along at the edge of acceptable liberal opinion and are also pro gay marriage.
Now take that elite consensus and combine it with anti-nuclear fear mongering propaganda from elites and you have a powerful opinion shaping force.
Why do think itâs so novel to state the most obvious things in the stupidest ways?
Yes governments make laws and the individuals in government have the power granted to that government to do some governing⌠Holy shit on stick batman.
And if the people that form government make bad laws you can elect new people in a democratic system to make better laws and wield power differently.
You are just using obfuscation to try frame that into a negative.
How do you know the âvast majorityâ of people didnât support gay marriage? Did you ask them all?
And what the fuck would it matter anyway.
Thatâs the beauty of constitutional protections. Populist fucks like you canât just shit down the throats of their scapegoats to gain political points from a fickle mob that often changes it opinions based on how the wind is blowing.
Populations opinions, knowledge and morals change over time. Thatâs makes the ability to change leadership even more important. Because todayâs problems might not be tomorrows or even recognized as problems in the future at all.
Laws are always imposed by the government. Thatâs in their fucking functions. Itâs built in. Itâs a feature not a bug. At least in a democracy the populous can switch out the governors when they are doing a shitty job.
An autocrat also has the power of their government behind them. Except their is no recourse of the people being governed to change course by changing leadership. They are at the whim of the autocracy. That one sided imposition is where people are actually forced to the line. Through extreme violence mostly.
You must be dumbest fucking political scientist in country.
Thatâs not what I wrote. Youâre making an appeal to consensus, that the population at large supported denuclearization. Iâm telling you that it doesnât matter if denuclearization was a popular policy. If power was pro nuclearization it would have been a popular policy as well after the fact.
Polling.
LMAO âDemocracy is the will of the people! Except when I donât like it then what the fuck does it matter anyway?â
I wasnât writing about how laws are imposed, but about how opinions and preferences are imposed you moron.
You canât even discern the fundamental argument. You have no business calling anyone else dumb.
How much do you enjoy polls? On a a scale of 1 to 10?
The question is how much do you enjoy poles?
Such a coy boy.
You flirt
And I havenât brought that up. Or discussed nuclear anything.
Your assertion that people make their opinion based on what people in power tell them what their opinion should be, requires proof then.
Not aprori declarations that it is truthful.
So back this claim up then. If that is what your are saying.
All I can do is provide data that correlates with certain events, like the turn of Obama from anti to pro gay marriage, Obergefell etc. There is more than enough evidence to make a case that public opinion is elite driven.
Yeah thatâs my bad I wasnât paying attention to the username because there really isnât much difference in the way you or doofaloofa argue.
That is not evidence. That is anecdotes that Obama might have changed his position and public sentiment changed or might have changed.
So you have the president. A person in power changing their position and public sentiment changing concurrently in the example you gaveâŚ
That is not even close to proof enough for you to rant on like a preacher that your assertion is even close to factual or true.
Hmmm
lol
Bro I presented points of evidence which taken together point to my argument being the correct one. You have not presented a counter except âNo thatâs not true just trust me!â And frankly, even the people who hate me politically agree with me. Progressives think public opinion is elite driven as well and they act as if it is true politically.
Itâs only âranting like a preacherâ when you disagree with it. If you agreed with me you wouldnât be attempting to attack my entirely normal tone.
Obama, and Bush Jr should both be tried, for countless felonies related to domestic spying with indiscriminate warrants, or no warrants, in violation of the 4th Amendment, among other things.
Arch Criminals, by volume, multiplied by the severity of those crimes and misuse of Office, if nothing else.
Shame, Shame, Shame.
Itâs really not worth it for me to explain to you what a null hypothesis, p value, and the weakness of your âevidenceâ is and how to take your anecdotes and apply it properly in how the scientific method should be applied to your conjectures.
I am not a scientist for one thing. And also think you are a bullshitter. So why would I bother. If you actually cared about the truth you could do it yourself.
You keep saying your a political scientist so you should have a strong grasp of burdens of proof and the scientific method already.
You should understand how weak and disconnected your evidence is from reality. And how far removed you are from even licking the truths nutsac.
You have anecdotal evidence at best. Not even good enough to form a decent hypothesis.
But you probably donât care because you are just bullshitting everything and are a liar.
Surely, polls can be useful, and the reverse, and they are unreliable.
As is all research, that relies on self-reported measures.