Harris vs Trump;

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

How does this constitute lying (see above)?

 

You were told to quit lying or go away. You stated that you'll choose the option to go away rather than the option to quit lying.

It's not rocket science.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's like you're complaining about not being the teacher's pet, bc they said the same thing, it's not an argument...

I think that others not backing up things looks more like a statement of fact than an argument.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If you're stating opinion only, please use phrases like, "I think..." to let us know. The post in question was full of assertions about what Democrats did, that Harris should have stumped in rural areas (she did), and that you somehow knew what the Democrats were thinking and what they underestimated, all without any examples to support the stance. You even claimed, "Those that changed camps this election cycle were those bothered by the direction and economy of the country", again without citing a source for your beliefs.

I will put into practice your suggestion. Most of my opinions were based on things that I had read. "Those that changed camps......" was actually something that I also read.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I don’t think so.

Moving on as in allowing others more space for conversation. 

[TheVat]

On 11/10/2024 at 4:09 AM, StringJunky said:

The drubbing in the electoral college for president doesn't translate to a free rein in Congress, does it?

No, even with a unity government (assuming House will get the four seats they need) there is the power of the filibuster.  Bad news is that liberal Supreme Court justice Sotomayor could retire within four years and the Senate only needs a simple majority to approve a Trump nominee.  And Thomas is also at retirement age.  

On 11/10/2024 at 8:00 AM, iNow said:

There’s also the issue of vibes versus facts. The facts on many issues are clear, but apparently not to many voters 

 

A good summation of the whole shitshow that was election 2024.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Maybe in 2028 they will be outraged enough to be bothered to vote.
This time a lot of them simply didn't care.

American voter memories seem really short.  Or many just never pay attention to news, so there are no unpleasant memories of the former Trump administration to retrieve. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

This time a lot of them simply didn't care.

Already acknowledged.

Has always been an issue, but amplified now.

Early effects of the metaverse IMO wherein realities are more often shared and reinforced while no longer primarily being constructed by ourselves 

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, TheVat said:

American voter memories seem really short.  Or many just never pay attention to news, so there are no unpleasant memories of the former Trump administration to retrieve. 

Some voters just didn’t blame Trump for things that happened on his watch, or flat-out didn’t believe he did things he did

“Undecided voters didn’t believe that some of the highest profile things that happened during Trump’s presidency—even if they saw these things negatively—were his fault.

This was the case on two of the biggest issues in the campaign—the 2020 economic crash and the demise of reproductive rights”

https://newrepublic.com/article/188238/trump-won-voter-perception-2024

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Some voters just didn’t blame Trump for things that happened on his watch, or flat-out didn’t believe he did things he did

“Undecided voters didn’t believe that some of the highest profile things that happened during Trump’s presidency—even if they saw these things negatively—were his fault.

This was the case on two of the biggest issues in the campaign—the 2020 economic crash and the demise of reproductive rights”

https://newrepublic.com/article/188238/trump-won-voter-perception-2024

I probably have mentioned it a couple of times (dangers of getting old, forgetful and repetitive) but it seems to me that because we are not able to establish a common reality, conventional wisdom gets out of the window in terms on how to appeal to folks. While there might be overarching themes, I suspect that as a whole folks increasingly uninformed.

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I probably have mentioned it a couple of times (dangers of getting old, forgetful and repetitive) but it seems to me that because we are not able to establish a common reality, conventional wisdom gets out of the window in terms on how to appeal to folks. While there might be overarching themes, I suspect that as a whole folks increasingly uninformed.

Plus the endless stream of lies, making it so that you don’t know what’s true and what’s false, so you don’t believe anything. Not even what you see with your own eyes.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

― George Orwell, 1984

[iNow]

For all the handwringing around democrats being too woke or caring too much about transgendered kids etc, 538 said today on a podcast that Harris performed better than any other incumbent party has performed in other elections around the globe. The message being that, while other variables were at play, anti incumbency in the face of an inflationary economy is the primary forcing agent explaining the outcome we saw. 

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

For all the handwringing around democrats being too woke or caring too much about transgendered kids etc, 538 said today on a podcast that Harris performed better than any other incumbent party has performed in other elections around the globe. The message being that, while other variables were at play, anti incumbency in the face of an inflationary economy is the primary forcing agent explaining the outcome we saw. 

She also performed better in states where she campaigned; there was a smaller shift to the right as compared to the other states. 

[npts2020]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

That cite facts? LOL

Facts don't matter when people are too lazy/inept to distinguish fact from fiction or don't really care about them.

 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

And when he was running for re-election it was for president, not for any other office he held. So it seems to me his record as president would be the appropriate yardstick to use. Besides, he didn’t have to propose legislation to support unions before republicans eroded protections, because the protections were in place.

So you don't think the well over 40 years of being an elected official prior to being President should have any bearing on how I might predict him to act in the future? Protections for unions began being eroded from the beginning of any such protections and took a quantum leap during the Reagan administration, beginning with the firing of all of the air traffic controllers. The Intercept/Common Dreams talks about PATCO in relation to several of the strikes happening near the beginning of the Biden Administration here. Can you find me a single instance prior to running for re-election to President where Mr Biden has supported a striking union? I think we will have to just disagree about how much Biden (and Democratic leadership) support unions. I say it is mostly lip service for votes when the actions (NAFTA, the Biden Administration not allowing rail workers to strike etc) have frequently run directly counter to the interests of the unions they expect to support them. This isn't just my opinion but that of the vast majority of the pro-union people I talk with who have any knowledge whatsoever about the subject. Here is an article more friendly to your point of view that gives Biden an A- on support of unions in relation to Presidents since FDR but it notes that the record generally since the 1940's has mostly been pretty abysmal. (It also mentions the rail strike I cited above)

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Facts don't matter when people are too lazy/inept to distinguish fact from fiction or don't really care about them.

 

Of course facts matter, regardless of how a subset of the population views them. I can't believe anyone on this site would suggest otherwise.

[npts2020]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Of course facts matter, regardless of how a subset of the population views them. I can't believe anyone on this site would suggest otherwise.

Allow me to put the words in context of the ongoing discussion, then. 

 

11 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Facts don't matter in relation to how people vote when people are too lazy/inept to distinguish fact from fiction or don't really care about them.

 

 

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Allow me to put the words in context of the ongoing discussion, then. 

If ALL people are too lazy/inept to distinguish fact from fiction then I would agree. Since not everyone is lazy/inept, facts do matter.  It is not possible to target only that subset of people.

[npts2020]

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If ALL people are too lazy/inept to distinguish fact from fiction then I would agree. Since not everyone is lazy/inept, facts do matter.  It is not possible to target only that subset of people.

I don't believe I have ever made any statements about "ALL people", especially in relation to how they think. The statement about being lazy/inept was a generalization (If you don't know, generalizations are necessary when making sociological statements about large groups of people) made to explain the apparent contradiction between what we all seem to agree being logical action and the actual action of voters in the recent electoral competition.

[LaurieAG]

On 11/11/2024 at 12:26 AM, zapatos said:

Correct. Other than bragging rights, the drubbing is irrelevant now that the election is over.

I see your point that the Democrats have a weak record, but my question remains. Where do the voters go when they feel like BOTH parties haven't been helping them? Don't you choose the party with the better record? Unless you are saying you believe the Republicans have the better record.

What they usually do is to not give them total power in one or the other houses.

I'd have to say that the current situation occurs when people notice lawyer politicians doing a thing called 'rule by law', especially when it is obviously not applied universally, as opposed to 'rule of law' where all are equal under the law.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Facts don't matter when people are too lazy/inept to distinguish fact from fiction or don't really care about them.

They matter here.

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Facts don't matter when people are too lazy/inept to distinguish fact from fiction or don't really care about them.

That's called victim blaming...

What makes you more deserviving of the facts of life?

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, iNow said:

For all the handwringing around democrats being too woke or caring too much about transgendered kids etc, 538 said today on a podcast that Harris performed better than any other incumbent party has performed in other elections around the globe. The message being that, while other variables were at play, anti incumbency in the face of an inflationary economy is the primary forcing agent explaining the outcome we saw. 

TFG's campaign spent over $100M in the last weeks leading up to the election on TV ads targeting the fact that Harris approved transgender care for prison inmates in California, claiming she would do it nationwide if elected. $100M spent demonizing a tiny group, and lying about how much of a problem it is. The policies Harris supported have been in place since 2016. AFAICT, only two inmates have received such care in CA. 

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

What they usually do is to not give them total power in one or the other houses.

 

Is that fact or wishful thinking?

[CharonY]

16 hours ago, iNow said:

For all the handwringing around democrats being too woke or caring too much about transgendered kids etc, 538 said today on a podcast that Harris performed better than any other incumbent party has performed in other elections around the globe. The message being that, while other variables were at play, anti incumbency in the face of an inflationary economy is the primary forcing agent explaining the outcome we saw. 

I am a bit wary to blame the specific post-COVID situation on everything, as many traditional parties were already losing ground before. However, major events (record asylum claims and then COVID) have accelerated things. What I am missing a bit is how the erosion of traditional information pipelines has contributed and more importantly, what it means going forward. Most papers I have seen in that regard are ultra-focused (understandably) but discussions on e.g. social media on education and politics are (in my biased opinion) too muted, relative to their impact. This is especially worrying as the pace of the change seems to outpace the speed of research on the matter.

[zapatos]

9 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I don't believe I have ever made any statements about "ALL people", especially in relation to how they think. The statement about being lazy/inept was a generalization (If you don't know, generalizations are necessary when making sociological statements about large groups of people) made to explain the apparent contradiction between what we all seem to agree being logical action and the actual action of voters in the recent electoral competition.

A generalization is an inference based on the facts about a subset of the group. Do we actually have facts showing that part of the electorate is lazy/inept, thus rendering them unable to distinguish fact from fiction?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's called victim blaming...

If they voted for Trump how are they victims? People have agency. They voted for someone, or chose not to vote. If they were inadequately informed, that’s a choice, too. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

A generalization is an inference based on the facts about a subset of the group. Do we actually have facts showing that part of the electorate is lazy/inept, thus rendering them unable to distinguish fact from fiction?

It’s pretty much a statistical certainty, isn’t it?

For those 25 and older, 8.9% had less than a high school diploma or equivalent, and 27.9% were high school graduates with no college

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/educational-attainment.html

Lazy and inept people exist. People watch FOX and think they are hearing facts. 

[zapatos]

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s pretty much a statistical certainty, isn’t it?

For those 25 and older, 8.9% had less than a high school diploma or equivalent, and 27.9% were high school graduates with no college

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/educational-attainment.html

Lazy and inept people exist. People watch FOX and think they are hearing facts. 

I don't know.

In 1900 very few people attended high school. Does that mean there is pretty much a statistical certainty those people were lazy/inept?

Quote

 In 1900, relatively few students ever attended high school or college.  Of the 17.1 million students in 1900, only about 0.6 million, 4 percent of students, were enrolled in grades 9 through 12 and 0.2 million, 1 percent of students, were enrolled in postsecondary education. 

https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/celebrating-150-years-of-education-data#:~:text=In 1900%2C relatively few students,were enrolled in postsecondary education.

[Luc Turpin]

A global trend involving inflation and incumbents.

Could Harris have done anything to buck the trend or was it unavoidable?

“This has been a banner year for elections; nearly half of the population of the world has gone to the polls in 2024 in a rare aligning of the calendar. The temperature of the world has been taken. And with a few notable exceptions, and to the extent that those elections were free and fair, the result has been largely the same: Virtually every party that was the incumbent at the time that inflation started to heat up around the world has lost.” 

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-11-06-globally-predictable-result-election-inflation-trump/

 

[Phi for All]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Lazy and inept people exist. People watch FOX and think they are hearing facts. 

When the "news" outlets are trying to entertain rather than inform, and the goal is to take up more of your time instead of telling you what you need to know and sending you on your way, it's difficult for me to single out FOX. Certainly the worst, but I had trouble with an MSN article recently about douchebag Nick Fuentes: https://www.msn.com/en-in/entertainment/hollywood/meet-marla-rose-woman-who-doxxed-nick-fuentes-after-being-pepper-sprayed-at-his-house/ar-AA1tUpQF

After going on X to tell women of the US, "Your body, MY choice. Forever!", Nicky got doxxed. A woman who lived near the address went to go check it out, and ended up ringing his doorbell. Allegedly, Nick burst out of the door, pepper sprayed the woman and pushed her down the stairs, taking her phone, which the police later gave back to her. A witness called emergency services, who treated the woman. There are witnesses to all of this, but the article from supposedly center-left MSN is hardly fair and balanced.

The headline is wrong: "Meet Marla Rose, Woman Who Doxxed Nick Fuentes After Being 'Pepper Sprayed' At His House". She didn't doxx him after being sprayed. She didn't doxx him at all. Someone else gave out his address and Marla Rose went to check it out. This is more than bad reporting, imo. 

The opening line of the story is wrong. "Marla Rose, a Jewish activist, allegedly tried to break in into far-right commentator Nick Fuentes' Illinois home and was 'pepper sprayed'." A few lines later they acknowledge that "She rang the doorbell and was allegedly met with pepper spray". MSN equates ringing a doorbell with breaking in?! 

How can we be sure the mistakes aren't put there on purpose to make us re-read the article a few times, or that supposedly center-left MSN wants to also get the attention of Fuentes white nationalist supporters by mentioning a  break-in by a Jewish activist? 

Requiring the "news" to actually inform us looks a lot like expecting the medical industry to actually cure us. What's in it for them? Where's the incentive to benefit others?