If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!
Even with Abortion, Romney did not change his position. Romney said he was pro-life, personally, but he promised he would not change the law in Massachusetts because he believes in the rule of law. I don't think you could read this editorial and still think Romney flip flopped on Abortion:
So did Romney flip-flop? Everyone says he does, so he must, right? What are other things that everyone had wrong? They often say that we don't understand anything that is currently going on. We are too close... too many people with too many ulterior motives... That the only people who can understand us will be historians who are able to look at us without bias...
There are stupid people all around who say stupid things. The key is to to listen to Bertrand Russell, who said: "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true". You say Romney flip flopped. I have analyzed every accusation to believe that Romney flip-flopped and they are all bogus. If you don't believe me just look into it yourself. Here is an article from actual scientist who did actual research to understand why the accusation of flip-flopping follows Romney around:
Bias against Mitt Romney’s religion is one of the reasons that the tag “flip-flopper” sticks with the former Massachusetts governor but not his Republican opponents, according to Vanderbilt political scientist John Geer. “There is no question that Romney has changed his positions on some issues, but so have some of the other candidates,” Geer said. “Why does the label stick to Romney but not his opponents? At least some of the answer lies in Romney’s Mormon beliefs.”
Geer and colleagues Brett Benson of Vanderbilt and Jennifer Merolla of Claremont Graduate University designed an Internet survey to assess bias against Mormons, how best to combat it and its potential impact on the nomination process and general election campaign.
“We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue,” Benson said. “Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.” Benson noted that the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons.
The poll, which was conducted by Polimetrix, included an oversample of Southern Evangelicals that Geer said measured bias with far more precision than previous efforts. The survey shows that 50 percent of conservative Evangelicals evaluate a moderate Christian candidate more positively than a conservative Mormon candidate.
The study’s findings suggest that criticizing Romney for flip-flopping is an effective campaign strategy because it sticks with two different groups: those who are genuinely concerned about Romney’s shifts on certain issues and those who use the label as cover for the fact that they do not want to vote for a Mormon for president.
“As the campaign continues to unfold, these data become increasingly relevant as the Republicans choose a presidential nominee,” Geer said.
Media Contact: Ann Marie Deer Owens, (615) 322-NEWS
Again, below are all of the accusations that I could find against Romney. I think you will find that I am fair and I tried to brainstorm all the reasons to agree and disagree. If you look at each accusation you will find that Romney has not changed his position.
James Bopp Jr. wrote the best defence of Romney. He goes through item by item explaining in simple terms that even a reporter could understand, if they spent 1/2 a minute thinking about it. Here is a link to it:
. Romney advocated states rights when it comes to abortion, and he declared a truce on the issue in Massachusetts. He said he would not change the laws. Now that he is running for president of the United States, he is asserting the same thing: each state should have the right to choose their abortion laws. So he has kind of changed his position from advocating that Massachusetts be able to remain pro-choice, to Massachusetts should remain pro-choice and other states should also get to choose their abortion policy, as he seeks to represent those from more states than Massachusetts. If you want to call that a flip, sure, go ahead. But I get to call you an idiot, if you try and call Mitt Romney a flip flopper, because a “flip flop” implies that he changed his position, and then changed it back again. And Abortion is the only issue that you could try and say his vies have changed. But even this is stupid. Is John R. Bohrer saying that we should never vote for someone whose views have changed? Did he really write a senior paper on JFK, Martin Luther King, and Cesar Chavez? Does he want to see examples were they advocated different things in DIFFERENT situations?
But I personally think the whole issue is stupid. If I ever ran for office, some things I would care a lot about, and some things I would let the people choose. Some things I would respect the people's voice. Their job is to represent what the people want, as well as to do what they want.
Let’s say someone is extremely qualified as a Governor, who happens to live in a liberal state. This person is the only person who could balance the budget and keep taxes down. But they would never get elected if they advocated all of their conservative beliefs. This person should be allowed to declare a truce on his conservative beliefs that would prevent him from getting elected, and keep these to himself, and get into office, keeping his promise to only advance those conservative issues that he said he would advance in the election. So this person finishes up the term, and kept his promise. He balanced the budget without raising taxes, and kept his promise to not advance his conservative beliefs that would have prevented him from getting elected in this very liberal state. Now this person is done with this state. He has done all that he could do. He balanced there budget, without raising taxes, and did kept true to his word on the truce that he made on those issues that would have prevented him from getting into office. He balanced their budget, and they spit in his eye every day. Now this candidate sees bigger problems than just the state budget that he balanced. There is a gigantic federal deficit. He sees himself as being uniquely qualified to balance the budget, and still promote pro-business agenda with his background in strategic business consulting. Should this person be kept from office because he declared a truce on issues that would have prevented a republican from getting elected in a liberal strong hold? Should this person have suffered a noble defeat, and stayed with his principals? Is defeat noble, or is it nobler to win, and serve your country?
George S. Patten said “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” Republicans have this word called “RINO”. It means “Republican in name only”. Democrats have not used the word “DINO”. They beat us in the last election. They ran very conservative democrats. They get to be in charge. They get to set the agenda. Republicans seem to hate each other more than they hate the democrats. We need to come together and win. A house divided against itself can not stand. Should we use the word “RINO”? Is it good to be calling each other names, or should be talk issues. In stead of calling someone a RINO why don’t we try saying specifically what we disagree with. Not all republicans agree exactly on what the most important issues are. We are a coalition of like minded people. There is no pure doctrine. There is a platform, but no one agrees 100% with it. Some people don’t like this wording, some people don’t like that. Some people think some things should be emphasized more than others.
People have called Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and about ever other candidate out there a RINO. Just Google “RINO” and any republican, and you will find another republican calling that person a Republican in Name Only. The term is stupid, because who determines what a true republican is? Apparently the person calling the other person a RINO is the only true measure of a true republican. Everyone who disagrees with him is a less than 100% pure.
Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.” Similarly, we won’t improve our country until we improve our level of public debate. On these pages I outline how we can automate conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis and solve our problems at a level higher than how they were caused.
To start, we will break our problems down into their sub-components, including beliefs, supporting, and weakening evidence, and arguments. This will allow thousands or millions of us to evaluate each part of an argument and evidence one at a time. We will group beliefs by topic and sort them by their positivity, strength, and level of specificity. This will prevent duplication and allow us to focus on one issue at a time.
The Idea Stock Exchange (ISE) proposes a groundbreaking framework for tackling complex issues, resolving conflicts, and fostering informed decision-making. Here's a detailed breakdown of its key features:
Evidence-driven: Prioritizes verifiable data and logical reasoning, ensuring well-informed conclusions.
Dynamic Ranking System: Inspired by Google's PageRank, it evaluates arguments based on the strength of their evidence, dynamically adjusting as new information emerges.
2. Multi-faceted Evaluation Metrics:
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Assesses proposed solutions by examining potential costs, benefits, likelihoods, and impact.
Argumentative Strength Assessment: Categorizes arguments based on logical consistency, evidence, relevance, and significance.
Maslow's Hierarchy Integration: Aligns the evaluation with fundamental human needs for a broader perspective.
3. Sophisticated Scoring and Ranking Protocols:
Precision Scoring Formula: Combines argument scores with evidence assessments to determine argument validity.
Evidence-Based Ranking System: Leverages algorithms to rank solutions based on predicted costs and benefits, with dynamic updates based on new information.
4. Uniqueness and Redundancy Scores:
Equivalency Score: Identifies similar arguments using semantic similarity metrics and machine learning, coupled with community feedback, to reduce redundancy and develop unique scores.
"Better Ways of Saying the Same Thing": Helps users find alternative expressions of the same idea, enhancing clarity and reducing duplication.
5. Logical Fallacy and Argument Evaluation:
Fallacy Detection: Implements algorithms to identify and flag potentially fallacious arguments, promoting rational discourse.
User-Contributed Evidence Assessment: Allows the community to contribute evidence supporting or weakening arguments for collaborative verification.
6. Technological Integration and User Interaction:
Database Tools: Proposes building tools to map conclusions, assumptions, and their relationships for deeper understanding.
Interactive Interface: Users can actively participate by submitting evidence, voting on argument strength, and suggesting alternative viewpoints.
7. Promoting Quality Debate:
Separating Argument Types: Distinguishes between truth, importance, and relevance arguments for a more nuanced debate structure.
Encouraging Constructive Dialogue: Aims to shift focus from emotional responses to evidence-based reasoning, fostering meaningful discourse over sensationalism.
8. Community-Driven Evolution:
Open-Source Development: Encourages community involvement in refining and evolving the platform, ensuring its adaptability and relevance.
Additional Considerations:
Data Quality and Bias: Implementing robust measures to ensure data accuracy and mitigate potential biases in algorithms and user contributions.
Transparency and Explainability: Providing clear explanations of scoring methods and decision-making processes to build trust and understanding.
User Engagement and Education: Fostering active participation and educating users on the platform's functionalities and responsible use.
We are a political party that organizes all the ideas and arguments by subject, and lets them battle in a survival of the fittest death-match.
We are a political party that supports candidates that promises to make their decisions based on online cost benefit and idea evaluation algorithms. They just have to use a forum that ties the strength of their conclusion to the strength of their assumption, so that when you strengthen or weaken an assumption you also strengthen or weaken conclusions based on the assumption.
We have had the technological ability to create a world based on logic for too long. It is about time we build a rational political party based on the assumption that we support plans, conclusions, activities, and policies that can gather evidence based support, and that we don't do things that don't stand up to analysis.
We will conduct open, online, cost/benefit analysis of each issue. It is about time.
Welcome to the website for the best political party of all time, and the future of reason based decisions making.
"No concept you form is valid unless you integrate it without contradiction into the sum of human knowledge."
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.