Some things I, and others, have noticed, over the past few years of watching US politics:
- Correlation = causation for positive outcomes when Republicans are in office.
- Correlation != causation for negative outcomes when Republicans are in office.
- Any positive outcomes which occur while Democrats are in office are caused by delayed effects of the last popular Republican administration.
- Any negative outcomes which occur while Republicans are in office are caused by delayed effects of the last Democratic administration.
- When outcomes are positive, and the president is a Republican, the primary driver of the economy is the president and his policies.
- When outcomes are negative, and the president is a Republican, the presidency has minimal effect on the economy.
- When outcomes are negative, and the president is a Democrat, the primary driver of the economy is the president and his policies.
- When outcomes are positive, and the president is a Democrat, the presidency has minimal effect on the economy.
- Democrats always control spending, even if they have no power to pass spending bills.
- If more than one Rule is applied during a conversation and the Rules appear to contradict or conflict with each other, that is the fault of the listener, not of the person applying the Rules.
- When a Democratic President does anything that appears on the surface to have been successful, there is always a true counterfactual substantiating that the Democrat, in fact, made things far worse than they would have been otherwise (e.g., FDR prolonged the Great Depression). [Ara]
- When a Republican President takes any action that seems to have resulted in failure or disappointment, there is always a true counterfactual substantiating that the Republican, in fact, improved things greatly over what they would have been otherwise (e.g., if Bush had not invaded Iraq, the terrorists would have attacked us again).[Ara]
- If a Democrat happens to espouse a position that a Republican would agree with, it is only evidence of their pandering, their slavish obeisance to opinion polls, their willingness to flip-flop, their cravenness and expediency.[Ara]
- As the certainty that legislation violates the U.S. Constitution increases, so does the probability of predictions that severe harm or death will come to Americans if the proposal is not swiftly enacted. [Declan McCullagh]
- Any positive developments in an election year are foreshadows of the Republican candidate winning (especially if the incumbent is a Dem). [Hartmut]
- Any negative developments in an election year are caused by fear that the Dem candidate could win, especially, if the incumbent is a highly unpopular Republican.[Hartmut]
- As online discussion of the Bush administration grows longer, the probability that the discussion will turn into one about the Clintons (either or both) approaches one.russell
Wow… You are cleary not a free-thinker.
not knowing your definition of “free-thinker”, nor how you evaluated this post against that definition, i can neither deny or affirm your assertion. such as. like everywhere. also.
I noticed you kept misspelling “Democrat” as “Democratic” when used as an adjective. The rules should be consistent with the style code.
1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
3. Believing in or practicing social equality: “a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords” (George du Maurier).
4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.
(… unless i misunderstood your comment.)