[AlexanderPalamayr]

That was interesting, although it ended up telling us something we all already knew, i.e. that Republicans represent the segment of the population that actually contributes to society and the Democrats represent those segments of the population that are either looking for a handout or are too young and stupid to realize how the government's economic policies **** them.

[iDzcs7TU]

If you're 20 and conservative, you have no heart. If you're 40 and liberal, you have no brain.



I'm bout 40 and liberal on social issues. :/



Regarding the OP link,

I have a problem with the first quad:

Democrats are economically restrictive. Left wing economics is authoritarian. This is a secret the left will protect with all the twisting of logic possible. Much like the repugs say "we are socially restrictive for the good of the whole!", the democrats say "we are restrictive economically for the good of the whole!". Dems will go as far as to say that left wing economic policy is actually liberal because it "frees" the general society (again, same thing repubs say about social issues).

Fact of the matter is, left wing economic policy is authoritarian - and no left-wing analysis ever shows this.



I have a problem with the second graphic:

People do not get more economically restrictive (advocating higher taxes and business regulations) as they enter their most productive years economically. That's just wrong. After a certain age, looking for medicare and social security might temper this; however, people become more economically permissive (less taxes and less regulations) as they begin to actually make some money. According to this graphic, 18 year olds are more economically liberal than a 30 year old. BS.



Already, we have two graphics (the first two) that are completely fkd by not recognizing left-wing economic policy as restrictive/authoritative. I'm not bothering with the rest. The article has a failed fundamental premise.

[Rqvtwlfk]

The labels are wrong. Nevermind the sample.


There's a fundamental flaw in premise that permeates any data gathering and/or analysis -

By not recognizing left wing economics as authoritarian/restrictive, the whole thing is fkd. You can gather a million samples if you want, from perfect distribution and weighted for population demographics - then get a million more - and it doesn't mean sht if your base assumptions are flawed.

[neirty]

Representative of people's fkd-up view of what "authoritative" economics means. But that was obvious from the author anyway. He set the flawed parameters and enough uneducated/ignorant/not-interested people didn't know any better. Gratz.

The unethical part is where the author uses their parameter-twisted answers to prove what he wants in his own flawed view. I suppose we can write that off to a lack of education in the scientific method.

Look, I review journal articles. I'm probably just being too harsh. I'm sure it is a fine little poll, but that fundamental flaw is just too much as it cascades throughout the article. Adding insult to injury, it apparently goes unrecognized by the majority people polled - because his data remains consistant according to his expectations despite the flaw.


It's the blind leading the blind. The leader (author) and few of the followers (samples) don't even know what "authoritative economics" means. As if they have never heard the term "liberal economic policy" and have never seen the definition of that. The whole thing presumes that "liberal economic policy" = "democrat economic policy". That's fkg retarded.