Slashdot Mirror

On top of that, Republican'ts now held in lowest regard since Watergate!
Why no one wants to be a Republican running in a free election without gerrymandering!

because it demonstrates a significant lack of appreciation for the text, spirit, or values enshrined in the Constitution

Overall, I find the lack of appreciation for same by the other party to be far more discontenting. It is the Democrats, who wish to:

• Illegalize "hate speech", contrary to the First Amendment;
• Illegalize weapons — from knives and brass knuckles to firearms, contrary to the Second Amendment;
• promote Affirmative Action — contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment;
• abolish Electoral College and otherwise diminish the role of the member-States in the Union;

But those threats to the Constitution do not worry you, only Christianity does?..

the survey you cited includes no evidence that American Muslims agree with Sharia Law

Seriously? Are you that dense? The article I linked to is called (emphasis mine) "Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world". What does it tell you, that, while it has Sharia-support figures for about 20 other countries — and even a graphic showing same — the figures for the US are omitted? Ok, maybe, my growing up in the USSR gave me the ability to read between the lines, that the blissfully naive Americans do not possess. Fine. Let's look for other sources:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

and:

nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Now, these results are politically inconvenient to the still-prevailing dogma, so, as could be expected, the study is denounced (such as here) as "deeply flawed". But what better rebuttal could there be, than offering results of your own study contradicting those of the "flawed" one? And yet, none of the critics could cite their own numbers. Does that not tell you something?

a completely made up story

Once again, it is not "made up" at all — and certainly not completely made up. It is a real problem, and not just in the US (for which we, curiously, do not establishment-blessed figures at all), but also in Canada, UK, and Norway...

Quit denying it — makes you look stupid. You'll get better mileage out of arguing, "it is nothing to worry about" instead.

Gun control is supported by the GOP base? WTF?

You'd be surprised. It depends heavily on which question you ask. Often questions about specific policies get way more support than more abstract questions. Here's an example from a Quinnipiac national poll from a few days ago (N=1610, MoE = +/-2.4%). For the question:

Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States?

26% of Republicans answered "support", while 69% answered "oppose". But that same poll also asked:

Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

For this question, "support" won 90%-9% among Republicans. The poll also asked:

As you may know, individuals on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list are not allowed to fly on planes. Would you support or oppose banning those on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list from purchasing guns?

which was supported 85%-12% by Republicans. Other polls show similar results. These are both measures that have been debated since the Orlando shootings. PollingReport is a good site for finding polls if you want to see more results for yourself.

You can see this sort of behavior in other issues as well. Health care reform was a big one -- the individual provisions were popular, but when asked about "Obamacare" people gave very negative opinions.

I don't consider theists to be anti-science. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

Of course not. Polls on evolution are careful to distinguish between evolution being "guided by God" and evolution as a purely natural process for that reason. But there does seem to be a floor of about 30% for support for Creationism no matter how the questions are asked. More specific polls are rare, but there's a 2005 Harris poll with some dismaying results (N=1000, MoE=+/-3%).

Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?

Did 38%
Did not 54%

Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?

Have 49%
Have not 45%

Do you believe apes and man have a common ancestry or not?

Do 46%
Do not 47%

This seems to have had a priming effect on the standard question:

Which of the following do you believe about how human beings came to be? Human beings evolved from earlier species. Human beings were created directly by God. Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.

Evolved from earlier species 22%
Created directly by God 64%
Powerful force/intelligent being 10%

And finally, the most relevant question for this discussion:

Regardless of what you may personally believe, which of these do you believe should be taught in public schools?
Evolution only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Evolution says that human beings evolved from earlier stages of animals.]
Creationism only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Creationism says that human beings were created directly by God.]
Intelligent design only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Intelligent design says that human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.]
All three.

Evolution only 12%
Creationism only 23%
Intelligent design only 4%
All three 55%
None+Unsure 6%

I don't think there are necessarily a ton of people who are hard-core anti-science ideologues, but the people who are functionally anti-science (in cases that make them uncomfortable) are not a tiny minority by any stretch.

Gun control is supported by the GOP base? WTF?

You'd be surprised. It depends heavily on which question you ask. Often questions about specific policies get way more support than more abstract questions. Here's an example from a Quinnipiac national poll from a few days ago (N=1610, MoE = +/-2.4%). For the question:

Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States?

26% of Republicans answered "support", while 69% answered "oppose". But that same poll also asked:

Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

For this question, "support" won 90%-9% among Republicans. The poll also asked:

As you may know, individuals on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list are not allowed to fly on planes. Would you support or oppose banning those on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list from purchasing guns?

which was supported 85%-12% by Republicans. Other polls show similar results. These are both measures that have been debated since the Orlando shootings. PollingReport is a good site for finding polls if you want to see more results for yourself.

You can see this sort of behavior in other issues as well. Health care reform was a big one -- the individual provisions were popular, but when asked about "Obamacare" people gave very negative opinions.

I don't consider theists to be anti-science. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

Of course not. Polls on evolution are careful to distinguish between evolution being "guided by God" and evolution as a purely natural process for that reason. But there does seem to be a floor of about 30% for support for Creationism no matter how the questions are asked. More specific polls are rare, but there's a 2005 Harris poll with some dismaying results (N=1000, MoE=+/-3%).

Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?

Did 38%
Did not 54%

Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?

Have 49%
Have not 45%

Do you believe apes and man have a common ancestry or not?

Do 46%
Do not 47%

This seems to have had a priming effect on the standard question:

Which of the following do you believe about how human beings came to be? Human beings evolved from earlier species. Human beings were created directly by God. Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.

Evolved from earlier species 22%
Created directly by God 64%
Powerful force/intelligent being 10%

And finally, the most relevant question for this discussion:

Regardless of what you may personally believe, which of these do you believe should be taught in public schools?
Evolution only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Evolution says that human beings evolved from earlier stages of animals.]
Creationism only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Creationism says that human beings were created directly by God.]
Intelligent design only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Intelligent design says that human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.]
All three.

Evolution only 12%
Creationism only 23%
Intelligent design only 4%
All three 55%
None+Unsure 6%

I don't think there are necessarily a ton of people who are hard-core anti-science ideologues, but the people who are functionally anti-science (in cases that make them uncomfortable) are not a tiny minority by any stretch.

Evolution v Intelligent Design - a small subset of Republicans, perhaps 20%. And many Evangelicals don't vote (and some still vote Dem)

Unfortunately, this is quite wrong. The numbers you get depend heavily on how you ask the question, but recent polling suggests that a plurality of Republicans (48%) believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time vs. only 27% of Democrats. About a third of *all* adults in the U.S. hold this position. If you ask whether God created humans in their present form, it's closer to 40%, and has been for decades. You can find other polls here showing similar results.

Regardless, overall popular support turns out to be less important than one would hope. What matters more is who's politically involved -- who votes in primaries, who runs in school board elections, who causes trouble when politicians vote the "wrong" way. The Republican party is also much more disciplined than the Democratic party, so you'll regularly see the Republican-controlled House and Senate voting in lockstep against even against ideas that have majority support among their base. (Gun control laws are the most recent example.)

Let's not pretend we can do things the majority want. The majority would probably like to expand those programs, but we stuck by the crazy system that equates land with people when it comes to representation.

Do you have a citation for the 90% figure? I'm genuinely curious, because the stats I could find suggest more of an even split of public opinion. In any case, if public opinion was more decisively in favor of restricting ownership, the most effective way to effect change with that kind of groundswell of support would be a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd rather than work-arounds or creative interpretation which set dangerous precedent for disregard of other rights.

In other words, this is clearly and primarily a Republican thing. If you are in a Republican-leaning state, you are much more likely to need photo ID.

That is exactly the opposite of what your stats say, and what I was saying. I was pointing out that it is not solely a Republican thing, and you just confirmed exactly what I said.

Also, I DID NOT state photo IDs, that was your invention. Only 17 states require no identification, and even that is changing.

There is no way to determine without requiring photo IDs the scale of voter fraud. Every article I have read has shown that fraud is pretty rapant, and photo IDs prevent people from voting who aren't eligible, how is this a bad thing? You need to prove you are a US citizen to register to vote (it is after all a requirement), how does it change anything to then get a free ID at the same time?

Carson is currently polling as number 2 behind Trump. Together they have 48% of the polls: https://www.google.com/search?...

So why would I care one whit about Cruz who seems to have 7% of the polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/w...

How is pointing out facts racist? The guy is huge right now, and I have real hopes of him taking the nomination. He is a damn site better than Hillary. If a guy polling at 33% or 20% has no chance of nomination in your mind, I would love to see how you feel about Hillary's chances.

is a lot better than "I think that the movement of planets influences my destiny".

Which is just as bad as "God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" Which is the belief of 48% of the respondents in a 2007 Newsweek poll. http://www.pollingreport.com/s...

http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

I was against the war, but am more against revisionism. ~30% in the UK supported the war in March 2003. This does not represent "almost universal opposition". Similarly in the US, ~30% were against the war, despite supporters' claims that "everyone" was for it.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq
http://pollingreport.com/iraq18.htm

Also, Card is right about gay rights being in opposition to democracy...

Not anymore: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

And even if opinions weren't rapidly shifting, there would still be the demographic factor to consider: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/11/05/support-for-same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state/

Treating gays and lesbians as second-class citizens does them actual harm for literally no rational, empirical reason. This is a very straightforward issue, lacking even the economic arguments associated with slavery, women's lib, etc. It's been obvious for many years how the gay rights struggle is going to go and how it's going to look to future generations. Can you really blame DC et al for not wanting to funnel money to someone on the wrong side? Another few years and they might as well be soliciting comics from the Klan.

Here is Rasmussen's list of things that the voters care about:

Economy
Health Care
Gov't Ethics and Corruption
Taxes
Energy Policy
Education
Social Security
Immigration
National Security/War on Terror
Afghanistan

Or a similar list from NBC/WSJ:

"Climate change, the drug war, and civil liberties" are not on either list. The mainstream candidates don't care about them because the voters don't care about them.

It's of no use getting wrapped up in our Slashdot bubble and insist that the things that are important to us must be the top priorities of the nation. A President has to be picked by half the country (or a bit less). We can rant and rave all we want that their priorities are wrong, but all that gets us is the joy of ranting and raving.

Democracy sucks, but less than the other options. We're stuck here in a country that cares more about Afghanistan than about getting their junk groped at the airport. Unless they're service members, or their family, the odds are that the latter affects them more. But it's no use telling me that. Tell them.

I suppose this debate is going to try to do that, and maybe it'll change something. But it's not going to suddenly propel a minority issue into a game-changer.

Whether the bankers benefit themselves or not is irrelevant (I can anticipate someone making the point that they were motivated by their own profit)

Seeing that a great number of businesses closed the doors due to the economic pressures placed upon by the actions of their (indirect) creditors, I don't see how that helps the balance sheet on good vs evil, nor how CEO's personal gain is irrelevant to the question at hand.

the point is that these successful businesses are considered "good things" by a large segment of the population.

The point really is these successful businesses survived in spite of the actions some financial institutions rather than because of. I don't believe consequentialism is a view held by the population by in large(see poll), however I would believe it if said of the business community.

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

I honestly believe that my view - that abortion should be safe, legal, available, and unnecessary - is the mainstream view held by the majority of citizens of the USA. Look at this recent poll data:

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Unfortunately, though, you're dead right about the parties. No party really supports the mainstream view. The Democrats cater to extremists who believe that a fetus is just an insensate lump of flesh, not a human being, and that disposing of an unwanted fetus has nothing to do with killing a child. The Republicans cater to extremists who believe that any amount of harm to society, to children, and to pregnant women is acceptable as long as some kind of Judeo-Christian dogma is permanently enshrined in law.

If I've unfairly characterized your motivations, I apologize. It seemed like you were calling me a willing participant in murder, just because I refuse to forcibly interfere with a woman's decision to do something I don't want her to do.

No. I believe the Christians you want to kick out make up about 0.0001%. That would be about the percentage that rejects science and believes the earth is roughly 6000 years old.

While I agree with your larger point that treating all Christians identically is silly, I'm afraid you're off by several orders of magnitude here. Evolution has never been accepted by a majority of Americans at any point in our history. Here's some more recent data:

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

There are some inconsistencies in the answers. People are more supportive of evolution and related ideas when asked about it in isolation. But if you give a choice between humans evolving naturally vs. being created by god within the last 10,000 years, creationism wins. There's also a majority in favor of teaching creation/ID alongside evolution in schools. This is not just a grass roots thing, either -- it includes high-profile figures like Rick Santorum.

Whether or not you think so, the actual data says otherwise:
* Marijuana legalization recently crossed 50% support.
* Gay marriage, which has been steadily shifting in favor of legalization.
* Leaving Afghanistan polls at 56% in favor, and has for months.
* Iraq War polls at 66% opposed, and the majority has been opposed to the war since at least 2006.

The only presidential candidate who even comes close to following the majority's wishes on those issues is Ron Paul, and he's generally been dismissed as a nutcase.

Whether or not you think so, the actual data says otherwise:
* Marijuana legalization recently crossed 50% support.
* Gay marriage, which has been steadily shifting in favor of legalization.
* Leaving Afghanistan polls at 56% in favor, and has for months.
* Iraq War polls at 66% opposed, and the majority has been opposed to the war since at least 2006.

The only presidential candidate who even comes close to following the majority's wishes on those issues is Ron Paul, and he's generally been dismissed as a nutcase.

What I think is hilarious is that I've never, not once, heard anyone actually say that "six days" was exact

Good for you. But I've met plenty of fundamentalists with that view. They're typically called "Young Earth Creationists". And they're common -- the linked poll claims that 40% of Americans believe that the Earth is less than 10K years old. It was the basis of the Scopes Trial, and has been in an issue in a number of court decisions since then. This is very much an ongoing issue.

However, these aren't made up:
1/3 of Americans believe in UFOs

Congressional approval rating

You are incorrect. About 40% of all Americans believe that humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago. Among creationists YEC is the overwhelming majority view.

Here ya go... Abortion, Public Option, Environment.

The environment vs. economy numbers have slipped in the last couple of years, as the economy fell off a cliff. But before that, they were just as I said.

The IP lobby is big on buying politicians. That will trump your few votes every time.

Then get more votes. That trumps money every time.

I'm no climate scientist, but as I understand it, there is a lot of data that is showing the climate changing. As I understand well above the 95% confidence level.

The real issue is how much of that is man made.

Well, that is true. However, an increasing number of Americans don't even understand that global warming is occurring at all. In a 2005 Fox News poll, 23% said they didn't believe GW was happening (or perhaps didn't know). In a 2010 Virginia Commonwealth University poll it had risen to 29%. And 49% of respondents to the VCU poll think "many scientists have serious doubts about [the evidence for Global Warming].

A CBS poll (same link as above) also shows a trend of Americans thinking GW won't have a serious impact, from 19% in Feb '09 to 24% in April '10 (thought the margin of error is 3 points). Further down on that same page is a Gallup poll. In 1997, 9% of respondents thought GW would "never" be a problem. In 2010 it's up to 19%.

There is a serious effort to portray this as a non-issue. People are being lead to believe that it's not even happening naturally, and that is really dangerous. Man-made or not, global warming/climate change is real. Even the conservative Heartland Institute cites a poll of climate scientists where 82% said that GW/CC is real.

It's important to have a serious scientific debate about the human impact on the environment and the climate. It's doubly important that this debate not be political, which is what it has become.

I do my best to, wherever possible, evaluate politicians based on their actions rather than their professed beliefs. To my knowledge, Obama has never done anything to support an agenda that has single payer health care as its eventual outcome.

If he truly wanted single payer, why did he and his allies work to exclude single payer advocates from discussions about health care reform? The usual argument is that it's "not politically feasible". But even if that were true, allowing advocates of more leftist policies to participate in the mainstream discussion would have helped the more "politically feasible" moderately liberal policies to seem more mainstream.

Regarding taxes, why don't we look at a couple polls to see how "extreme" Obama's advocated policy is: in the AP-CNBC poll, the numbers fluctuate a bit, but about 14% want all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, 40% want them to expire for those earning over $250k, and 44% want the tax cuts continued. It's true that the question didn't ask about a higher cutoff, but my point is that the agenda being pushed by Obama is most definitely not "extreme left", when compared with public opinion.

I'm not claiming anything about the success or failure of Romneycare or Obamacare. My post was a response to the following claim:

Obama and his crew are EXTREMELY leftist, with respect to what the majority of US citizens want to see in government.

It is true that some polls indicate that a majority or plurality opposes the healthcare bill, but that is not the same as indicating that the public thinks that the bill is too leftist. For instance, look at the second poll here (McClatchy-Marist, Nov. 15-18): regarding the health care law, only 16% said that the bill should stand as it is, but a sizeable number of respondents (35%) chose "Change it so it does more".

I'd still like to know what makes you say that "Obama and his crew are EXTREMELY leftist".

Obama and his crew are EXTREMELY leftist, with respect to what the majority of US citizens want to see in government.

Please provide at least one example, comparing Obama policy versus opinion polls.

Here are two counter-examples:

Health care: polls suggest that Americans are not opposed to single-payer health care. For example: the July 2009 Kaiser Health Tracking Poll.

• If asked their opinion of "Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for-all", respondents were 58% in favor and 38% opposed.
• Using alternative wording, "Having a national health plan – or single-payer plan – in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan", respondents were 50% in favor and 44% opposed

By contrast, Obama and the Democrats worked against those advocating single-payer:

Baucus and many others, including President Barack Obama, say single-payer is not practical or politically feasible.

"Everything is on the table with the single exception of single-payer," Baucus said recently. "This country is not going to adopt single-payer, at least not at this time."

The plan finally passed by the Democrats was based on the reforms implemented under Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and has many similarities to the bill introduced by Sen. John Chafee (R-RI) in 1993 (with a number of Republican cosponsors).

On Afghanistan, based on polls, Obama seems to be pretty centrist: about half of respondents think the U.S. should not be involved in Afghanistan now, and those opposed to current policy appear to be roughly divided evenly between opposite views.

There was a poll.

Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2008. N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? (1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. (2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. (3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

45% of Americans went with option #3.

But the "moderate" position is to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely

Dear god, what makes you think *that* is a "moderate" position?? Talk about a distorted worldview. Here are a couple polls that cover the topic. As of September 2010, 2/3rds of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. The same number feel the war wasn't worth it. I suppose your claim is that the majority of Americans aren't moderates, then?

Regarding the Holocaust: Got a source? Last I heard, Hitler himself had dark brown hair. I haven't heard that bit about persecuting hair color since I was in grade school. Thanks for the memories.

Regarding the health reform bill: Got a source? Everything I'm seeing shows no clear consensus, at which point it falls to the legislature to decide on their own. Even that was pretty evenly split.

Regarding arrest: In the event that you get arrested and it does screw up your lifestyle significantly, you have the right to sue for wrongful arrest. Mistakes happen, and you have the ability to try to get things fixed. That would be a great time to point out that, hypothetically, the police used only a GPS device, rather than an audio recorder, to show your association. Show that the arrest wasn't justified, and you can get it almost erased from history. Of course, the easiest route is to simply talk to your boss and try to get the job back after the facts have come out.

Regarding attorneys: Who did you think presents the evidence to a judge? It's the attorney general and the other assistant attorneys, and those with other titles depending on the state.

I'm asking this seriously. If you took said fetus out of the woman at the 9 week stage, what are the chances it would survive w/o assistance?

How long would a newborn, or even a 6-month-old child survive without assistance?

Plain and simple, if it would kill my wife to have a baby and she got pregnant (and she would otherwise be able to live a semi-normal healthy lifespan), my guess is that I would want to keep my wife alive... however, I would still leave the decision up to her.

Fortunately the strong majority of anti-abortion activists believe in exceptions for the life of the mother as well as rape cases. Additionally, all cases for rape, incest, and health risks to the mother account for only 1% of all of abortions, according the the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

In support of the level-headed poster who also responded to this:

Kerry in 2004 got 88% of the black vote. Source
Gore in 2000 got 90% of the black vote. Source
Clinton in 1996 got 84% of the black vote. Source
Clinton in 1992 got 83% of the black vote. Source
Dukakis in 1988 got 89% of the black vote. Source
Mondale in 1984 got 91% of the black vote. Source
Carter in 1980 got 83% of the black vote. Source

I'm not sure if the OP is sincere, but I guarantee there are people who see the 95% and immediately are sure it's all based on race. A small proportion surely was, but 95% does not massively deviate from the expected outcome.

I understand why you think that, but you're wrong.

You see 95% of blacks voting for Obama and assume they all voted for him because he was black. This can be pretty easily disproven, and can be done so using your beloved exit polling data.

2004: Kerry got 88% of the black vote. Source
2000: Gore got 90% of the black vote. Source

Blacks vote Democratic. If Clinton had won the nomination, she probably would have gotten around 90% of the black vote. Some blacks certainly did vote for Obama because of his skin color, but nowhere near 95%.

The primary situation is a different dynamic, and may have been driven more by race. But you'd have to do better to show that than point at the NC primary.

Huh?

OK... let me try... the Left induces a pathology in approximately 67%, no 53%, no 51%... well, looking at that trend, with luck, only 33% on the other stupid extreme will be "pathological"... hopefully less...

What detractors against regulation miss is that their creed, if enacted, would also eliminate regulations that personally benefit them. It's just another aspect of the Right's extraordinary ability to convince otherwise-rational people to act against their own interests. Through careful stoking of innate fears via the media, the Right induces a pathology in approximately 33% of the population.

Crap! The drugs are wearing off!

RON PAUL! RON PAUL! THE GOVERNMENT WILL KILL YOUR BABIES!

It's not easy to do this in a two-party system, but one of the major parties in the US is less popular among US citizens than legalization of cannabis is.

Earlier this year, a couple of polling organizations asked about legalization of cannabis. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in late April asked: "In general, do you favor or oppose legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use?" Of 1072 respondents, 46% were in favor, 52% opposed, and 2% unsure. A CBS News poll (see at the same link) of 1142 adults in January asked "Do you think that the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?" It found similar support at 41% in favor, 52% opposed, and 7% unsure. But in March, when the question was repeated, the support was lower at 31%-63%-6%, down in the same territory as Republicans (we'll get to their numbers in a minute). In February, Rasmussen polled 100 adults, asking them "Should Marijuana be legalized?" 40% answered yes, 46% no, and 14% unsure. Crosstabs aren't available to the non-subscribing public, but Rasmussen does let us know that 48% of US men are in favor of legalization, but only 34% of US women agree. It also said that voters under 40 years of age support legalization much more strongly.

So we see legalization of cannabis with support just above 40% on average. It's looking tough for my claim in the subject line, right? How are the Republicans doing?

Dick Cheney was around 30% in his last job approval numbers, and his personal favorability numbers in May varied between different polls, with a range of 18% to 37%.

George W. Bush had final job ratings from different polls between 24% and 33%. His latest favorability numbers vary, depending on the poll, between 25% and 41%, with 41% looking like a bit of an outlier.

Rush Limbaugh generally gets positive marks from about a quarter of the population, with results varying between 20% and 30%.

John Boehner gets marks of (favorable-unfavorable-don't know)15-64-21.

Mitch McConnell is at 22-60-18.

Congressional Republicans get favorability numbers of 12-72-16.

The Republican Party as a whole gets marks of 21-71-8.

So in fact we see that legalization of reefer madness is currently more popular than prominent Republicans, about three times as popular as Congressional Republicans as a group, and about twice as popular as the Republican party as a whole.

It's not easy to do this in a two-party system, but one of the major parties in the US is less popular among US citizens than legalization of cannabis is.

Earlier this year, a couple of polling organizations asked about legalization of cannabis. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in late April asked: "In general, do you favor or oppose legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use?" Of 1072 respondents, 46% were in favor, 52% opposed, and 2% unsure. A CBS News poll (see at the same link) of 1142 adults in January asked "Do you think that the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?" It found similar support at 41% in favor, 52% opposed, and 7% unsure. But in March, when the question was repeated, the support was lower at 31%-63%-6%, down in the same territory as Republicans (we'll get to their numbers in a minute). In February, Rasmussen polled 100 adults, asking them "Should Marijuana be legalized?" 40% answered yes, 46% no, and 14% unsure. Crosstabs aren't available to the non-subscribing public, but Rasmussen does let us know that 48% of US men are in favor of legalization, but only 34% of US women agree. It also said that voters under 40 years of age support legalization much more strongly.

So we see legalization of cannabis with support just above 40% on average. It's looking tough for my claim in the subject line, right? How are the Republicans doing?

Dick Cheney was around 30% in his last job approval numbers, and his personal favorability numbers in May varied between different polls, with a range of 18% to 37%.

George W. Bush had final job ratings from different polls between 24% and 33%. His latest favorability numbers vary, depending on the poll, between 25% and 41%, with 41% looking like a bit of an outlier.

Rush Limbaugh generally gets positive marks from about a quarter of the population, with results varying between 20% and 30%.

John Boehner gets marks of (favorable-unfavorable-don't know)15-64-21.

Mitch McConnell is at 22-60-18.

Congressional Republicans get favorability numbers of 12-72-16.

The Republican Party as a whole gets marks of 21-71-8.

So in fact we see that legalization of reefer madness is currently more popular than prominent Republicans, about three times as popular as Congressional Republicans as a group, and about twice as popular as the Republican party as a whole.

It's not easy to do this in a two-party system, but one of the major parties in the US is less popular among US citizens than legalization of cannabis is.

Earlier this year, a couple of polling organizations asked about legalization of cannabis. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in late April asked: "In general, do you favor or oppose legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use?" Of 1072 respondents, 46% were in favor, 52% opposed, and 2% unsure. A CBS News poll (see at the same link) of 1142 adults in January asked "Do you think that the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?" It found similar support at 41% in favor, 52% opposed, and 7% unsure. But in March, when the question was repeated, the support was lower at 31%-63%-6%, down in the same territory as Republicans (we'll get to their numbers in a minute). In February, Rasmussen polled 100 adults, asking them "Should Marijuana be legalized?" 40% answered yes, 46% no, and 14% unsure. Crosstabs aren't available to the non-subscribing public, but Rasmussen does let us know that 48% of US men are in favor of legalization, but only 34% of US women agree. It also said that voters under 40 years of age support legalization much more strongly.

So we see legalization of cannabis with support just above 40% on average. It's looking tough for my claim in the subject line, right? How are the Republicans doing?

Dick Cheney was around 30% in his last job approval numbers, and his personal favorability numbers in May varied between different polls, with a range of 18% to 37%.

George W. Bush had final job ratings from different polls between 24% and 33%. His latest favorability numbers vary, depending on the poll, between 25% and 41%, with 41% looking like a bit of an outlier.

Rush Limbaugh generally gets positive marks from about a quarter of the population, with results varying between 20% and 30%.

John Boehner gets marks of (favorable-unfavorable-don't know)15-64-21.

Mitch McConnell is at 22-60-18.

Congressional Republicans get favorability numbers of 12-72-16.

The Republican Party as a whole gets marks of 21-71-8.

So in fact we see that legalization of reefer madness is currently more popular than prominent Republicans, about three times as popular as Congressional Republicans as a group, and about twice as popular as the Republican party as a whole.

It's not easy to do this in a two-party system, but one of the major parties in the US is less popular among US citizens than legalization of cannabis is.

Earlier this year, a couple of polling organizations asked about legalization of cannabis. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in late April asked: "In general, do you favor or oppose legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use?" Of 1072 respondents, 46% were in favor, 52% opposed, and 2% unsure. A CBS News poll (see at the same link) of 1142 adults in January asked "Do you think that the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?" It found similar support at 41% in favor, 52% opposed, and 7% unsure. But in March, when the question was repeated, the support was lower at 31%-63%-6%, down in the same territory as Republicans (we'll get to their numbers in a minute). In February, Rasmussen polled 100 adults, asking them "Should Marijuana be legalized?" 40% answered yes, 46% no, and 14% unsure. Crosstabs aren't available to the non-subscribing public, but Rasmussen does let us know that 48% of US men are in favor of legalization, but only 34% of US women agree. It also said that voters under 40 years of age support legalization much more strongly.

So we see legalization of cannabis with support just above 40% on average. It's looking tough for my claim in the subject line, right? How are the Republicans doing?

Dick Cheney was around 30% in his last job approval numbers, and his personal favorability numbers in May varied between different polls, with a range of 18% to 37%.

George W. Bush had final job ratings from different polls between 24% and 33%. His latest favorability numbers vary, depending on the poll, between 25% and 41%, with 41% looking like a bit of an outlier.

Rush Limbaugh generally gets positive marks from about a quarter of the population, with results varying between 20% and 30%.

John Boehner gets marks of (favorable-unfavorable-don't know)15-64-21.

Mitch McConnell is at 22-60-18.

Congressional Republicans get favorability numbers of 12-72-16.

The Republican Party as a whole gets marks of 21-71-8.

So in fact we see that legalization of reefer madness is currently more popular than prominent Republicans, about three times as popular as Congressional Republicans as a group, and about twice as popular as the Republican party as a whole.

"As a rule, we're at least a bit more informed on things, no matter our actual political stances."

ROTFLMAO Somebody mod this guy +1 funny

A "bit more" is a hard to define amount of increase. However, I submit the recent studies and polls that have made front page news at slashdot where a majority of the population couldn't name the vice president, speaker of the house or senate, and a few other things. Most of Slashdot could name those and a little more which would in my opinion, qualify as a "bit more" informed.

As for the American people going along with it, there were polls where the public agreed with the TSP use when it was critical enough to get bush reelected. Something like 51% supported the use of wiretaps without warrants between terrorists and sympathizers in the US. there was evena poll that showed 52% to 38% with 9% unsure, stating that Americans thought the US government "should wiretap mosques to try to keep an eye out for radical preaching by Muslim clerics"

I think his comment was appropriate, if not just at critical point in history to maintain the actions.

You'd be surprised that this thought is actually far into the minority. The fact is, that while yes, you can't argue about the color of the sky, because that is observable currently, the 'religious scientists' will keep sticking with the point that 4000 BC is not observable currently, and has not been recorded in any true scientific manner. The basic fact that we've never seen macro-evolution actually occur allows the idea that God could have created the Earth 6000 years ago to still stand. Long jump, I realize. Even the basic idea of macro-evolution actually is defeated in scientific method, due to the fact that it can't be recreated, and has never been observed directly. On the other hand, you wouldn't even have to break the fundamental laws of physics to describe why things can be dated beyond 6000 years though if you include God's touch. Most of our aging processes come from dating things based of percent compositions of isotopes that we know the half-lives of. If you believe in a God with some forethought, which an all-knowing God would of course have, you could reasonably see him creating fossils that were already lacking in specific isotopes, knowing that man would discover the science of half-lives. Now as for why, well, I'll let a real theologian discuss that.

I personally, am anything BUT a Young Earth Creationist, but I do talk to a devote one, and this is the basis for his argument. And it frightens me when I see polls that say that people like him actually far outnumber people like me. From a online poll (linked below), 44% of Americans still believe in YEC. 38% believe in Old Earth Creationism (God-guided evolution basically). Only 14% of Americans believe in true atheistic evolution.

The bottom line is we don't have visual or even second-hand evidence of anything before the invention of alphabet and writing leaves a lot of people in disbelief of evolution and an old earth. And the invention of true alphabets, when prehistory became history, is, strangely enough, about 4000 years old.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

Oh come on, not this again. How many times do we want to keep having the same discussion? Yes, some people interpret the Bible literally and turn a blind eye to science. We have this conversation every time there's some story of an archeological, geological, etc. bent. Perhaps we should focus the conversation here on people who value science but nonetheless remain scientifically illiterate (which in itself is a very sizable chunk of the population).

How many times? For as long as 44% of Americans agree with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." - now that is a very sizable chunk of the population!

my kingdom for mod-points. by length of term Bush was still just another president at this point the game http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm curiously his approval ratings turned south just *before* he was elected the second time. Daswolfen is a punk, that misses his punk president.

I mean, sure, there are many who think both ideas are bad. Bully for them, they're being consistent. But it doesn't appear that's true for a largish percentage of Americans (at minimum the conservative 50%).

Interesting. Where are you getting your data? This shows a large proportion think it was a mistake and oppose the war.

Perhaps you are aware of a source I am not.

You are mostly correct in your assessment looking in. Our ties between financing campaigns and favors afterwards are well known and fairly well documented. While politicians occasionally get charged with corruption, I'd hazard a guess that it's probably only the top 1-2% of offenders, at best.

The one area you're not quite correct is in where the money actually comes from. This page shows summarized contributions from corporations, their Political Action Comities, and their employees. As you can see, it's far smaller than the total amount of funding Obama received. If you look at the voting records, Obama received around 62 million votes. If 5% of those individuals tossed $100 his direction, that's around half of his total funding, and 25 times more than he received from corporate ties.

In most elections, that would seem pretty high, and fairly unlikely. However, this was a pretty special case for us. As a whole, the country HATES President Bush. When McCain ran against Bush in 2000, he ran as a rebel, an anti-republican republican. After being crushed there, with the Bush campaign managing to smear his time as a POW and drawing into question the legitimacy of his daughter, he turned into Bush's lapdog. Nobody can really figure out why, but McCain went from being against much of the republican machine to being a cog in it.

Which such a public dislike for Bush, and with McCain viewed as being just more of the same, a lot more people in this election felt it was worth a couple hundred bucks to ensure that we would be able to get out of Iraq and fix our economy.

(But this doesn't mean that your complaint about corporate rule is in any-way unjustified. It's why I tell everyone we need another party, and it's why I refuse to vote for either party any more. )

The guy never had better than a 50-50 approval rating

Sorry, but you're just making shit up. His approval rating was fine (88% right after 9/11, in fact) until mid-2003, the start of the Iraq War, and then it took a nose-dive and never recovered.

There is enough evidence of how unsuccessful W's presidency was without having to fabricate stuff.

The actual number is usually over 50%, depending on how the question is asked. In particular, over half of Americans support teaching Creationism alongside evolution in public schools.

> That said... you want 'Real Change'?

Obama likes to make a big deal that John McCain voted with George Bush 95% of the time.
Presumably, that's bad .
Presumably, that's bad because Bush's approval rating is something like 29%.
Presumably, that's why Obama keeps telling us we need to vote for change.

But... Barack Obama voted with Democrats 96% of the time.
And the Democrat-controlled Congress' approval rating is something like 13%.

So... Where is the change that Obama will be bringing?

> That said... you want 'Real Change'?

Obama likes to make a big deal that John McCain voted with George Bush 95% of the time.
Presumably, that's bad .
Presumably, that's bad because Bush's approval rating is something like 29%.
Presumably, that's why Obama keeps telling us we need to vote for change.

But... Barack Obama voted with Democrats 96% of the time.
And the Democrat-controlled Congress' approval rating is something like 13%.

So... Where is the change that Obama will be bringing?

Such persons can recite facts, same as anyone else.

How deliciously ironic. Earlier in the thread, I was accused thus: "Now, the interesting thing about your post is that it's technically correct on nearly every point, and yet the overall thrust is entirely misleading." Obviously "reciting facts" isn't the key, but the "overall thrust" - as long as your thrust toes the local political line. ;-) That's sad, too, but also human nature. But to your two mistaken points.

There are a hundred reasons why an abortion ought to be an option, and very few of them are convenient for anyone.

Well... no. At least we can "recite facts" here with confidence. Well-researched statistics show the following distribution of reasons for having an abortion in the USA:

• Rape or incest: 1%
• Mother's health: 3%
• Fetal defects: 3%
• Convenience: 90%
• Other: 3%

"Convenience" includes unready to have a child, can't afford it, parents or father want the abortion, baby would change my life, etc.

The reasons raised in a discussion first usually indicates the debater's position. The "abortion at any stage of development for any reason" folks like yourself, about 20% of the US population, always seem to jump to the single-digit reasons like rape or mother's health. Those like myself who support some limits on abortion (such as opposing late-term abortions), about 60% of the US population, tend to focus on entire spectrum. Those who oppose abortions in all cases (about 12%) usually focus on the convenience issues only.

In that respect, at least, you didn't disappoint.

You know very well no one has advocated the killing off of babies.

I wish that were true. My early much stronger pro-life values were very affected when, as a teenager in the 1970's, I read an article by or about a doctor who had performed a late-term abortion that resulted in a live birth. He lay the screaming baby on a table, ordered the nurse not to tend to him, and went outside to smoke a cigarette. After about 15 minutes the nurse reported that the baby had died, and his response was "Good". (It was definitely intended as a pro-abortion tome, but was at least honest in its assessment of the downsides of legal abortion. Ah, the good old days. :-)

That this continues to be an issue even today is evident by Obama's well-reported vote against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in the Illinois senate (which was intended to prohibit allowing a living baby resulting from a late term abortion to be killed by neglect). He did vote for identical legislation in the US Senate (yes, it's identical - go get the text of both bills for yourself), which is why I mentioned that his position may have changed, or his earlier vote may have been due to other considerations (legislating is such a fascinating avocation). The bill has now become law, thankfully.

But the outlying cases of rape / health / defect and late term / partial birth / live birth is exactly why the majority of Americans take a more nuanced view of abortion than you. Compromise would be a good thing. Unfortunately, the current polarized environment makes that unlikely - more's the pity.