FWIW, he's (currently) a climate change doubter, at minimum.

"My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us."
-Mitt Romney

FWIW he isnt a "a climate change doubter". He is a MMGW doubter, and recognizes the folly of crippling the economy for something that will have at best speculative impact on climate.

I'm pretty sure you're reflexively Republican. Most people hold some version of those points, to varying degrees, to be true. Maybe, Romney is closer to the middle on climate than science, but he is still out of the mainstream with denial and refusal o ncorporate it somewhat into policy. the market should be free to punish and reward, to extremes, is NOT mainstream.

A Romney win is an unmitigated poker disaster. There are republicans under whom it could be better than Obama, but this ain't Paul, or even a rotten corrupt type like Barton who likes poker.

Interpreted and devoid of dog whistles".........Rmoney said.....science isn't necessarily fact if it costs us money, because data and conclusions backing up hypotheses isn't in the bible.

You are correct that I miscategorized his position. I typed the wrong thing.

R. Money apparently DOES believe that the climate is actually changing (which is to say that he believes in thermometers), which does actually place him near the front of the pack in terms of scientific credibility.

Mormon, but that could be part of #2.

What has Obama done? The only thing he did was extend the same solar incentives that were under place during Bush. He expanded NREL. What a boondoggle, the NREL is just a waste of money. Under his term we see solar companies go broke and Sunpower, the most efficient of all solar companies be sold to the French oil company. Meanwhile every solar company stock is in red. On the promising note some of the largest solar installations are being produced now, and for southern Cal based on talk radio commercials is become an anchor to the economy. Many in his base want to eliminate nuclear energy. Romney is anti-global warming because the base won't allow it. He is wishy washy. Global oil use grew under Obama. Obama does support electric car incentives.

???

The climate middle in the country doesn't deny science. It wants to avoid economic contraction and inconvenience by imposing onerous regulations or taxes. But, it does favor research and investment in green technology. Solyndra is only an issue on fox and talk radio. The middle wants some kind of expansion of domestic energy, but are too stupid to realize its negligible affect on pricing or dependence. Obama has pretty much obliged the climate middle. Romney is hewing to the industrial/anti-knowledge fringe. Both are "wishy-washy", but one is the reality of democracy in an undereducated nation.

in this respect Romney is no different then any other Republican. This seems to be the standard GOP operating procedure.

That's what I was trying to explain to steelhouse. He tried to read nuance and reasonableness into a response attempting to appease the base in the least threatening to the middle way. Amazing how republicans need translation on republicanspeak the most.

If driving decisions were legally considered the "decisions of the car", I would not have a problem with calling a car a legal person. You could debate about it being a "moral person", but in any case, it would be stupid to argue that a new law prohibiting what cars could do wasn't ultimately a law prohibiting what natural people could do.

We cannot explain steelhouse, we can only read and enjoy. He's like a zen koan.

I grew up and found out conservative rhetoric was bull****, with the help of some really patient people who thought I was worth salvaging. Since I wasted a decade plus on poker, the least I can do is throw a lifeline or two to the steelhouse's of the world.

Well it would be hard for me to characterize Steelhouse's rhetoric as consistent.

I grew up as a steadfast liberal, and then I realized it was all false.

I grew up a steadfast conservative, and then I realized it was all false.

It's rare to find young liberals in the true sense of the word. You may find gay rights or race relations, but it takes a certain amount of scholarship to understand. After education went over a cliff in the 60s, the proportion of liberals stopped increasing. Strip out gays and single mothers who try, and the working class is devoid of liberals.

Conservatism relies so much on historicism, identity, and superstition, it's easier to get behind as an adolescent or teen.

What saved you?

What?

I rarely find anyone I would describe as liberal under 25. They might love Obama, but they are as vapid on core issues as a young republican. They have no idea WHY on the issues. It's all racial tolerance, gay rights, agnosticism, or science. Community, education policy, uhc, Keynesianism, foreign policy thinking, progressive taxation, full employment, safety nets......mention those and their eyes glaze over. They have not a clue, but Theyhave a hope and change tattoo.

If I hadn't been pushed and prodded on thinking about health care policy, welfare, and education financing, I would still be voting Republican. Maybe an extensive liberal arts education in political theory and history laid some foundation, but hard core policy and a subscription to the economist broke me away from the hard right.

Seems like you're saying that young people don't really know what they believe in, with political leanings being irrelevant.

Your initial political leanings are usually products of how you interacted with your parents when you were young. I was a kid in the eighties, local and evening news at dinner every night, and my parents liked Reagan. I cried in 6th grade when bush took over for him in class. I had not a clue about one issue beyond black people got welfare and atheists were on Russia's side. By high school I was reading the local cons active weekly, listening to rush in study hall, and Reading national review at the library. George Will and James Dobson were my heroes.

To be fair, there is little history education left, and almost zero worthwhile civics.
There is no social place for young kids to learn about liberal thought. Conservatives have church, boy scouts, home or christian school, and angry parents with little education.

You either get a great teacher, or life gets harsh enough you see reality. Or your parents were liberals.

I can only use the experience of myself and my circle when I was younger but I would say this is relatively true. I know that none of my friends knew a thing about politics all through highschool and literally never talked about anything beyond school, girls, music & movies.

In college was where the first time I started paying attention to social and political issues and found people discussing as much.

I would offer that much of political thought is much like religion... you follow what your parents tell you until you get to an age where you take a deeper interest in this stuff and question it.

Even in college, I think much of the left vs right stuff is dominated by general social issues - how do you feel about gay rights? Abortion? Safety nets? You may also have friends going into the service and you start to think about people dying in war and how do you feel about that?

I'm in my early 40s now and while I'm probably slower then many, I'm still learning about issues and trying to figure out what makes more sense.

I would guess that most really young people who have a firm label for themselves are largely only vaguely aware of what all the issues are that they are siding with and identify with a group as opposed to the nuances of their philosophies.

You and I live in different realities.