|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 07 2024 02:11 Timebon3s wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 02:04 r00ty wrote:On November 07 2024 01:49 Timebon3s wrote:On November 07 2024 01:47 r00ty wrote:On November 07 2024 01:37 Timebon3s wrote:
Now that the dust has settled and Trump won by a landslide, why wasn’t there more voters in favor of him here on this forum? Is this a very left-leaning forum, or are people simply afraid of saying they support Trump?
Mabye it won’t be as bad as people think.
As far as Europe is concerned, he actually made NATO stronger, which is good for my country at least.
He’s also said he will try to stop the war between Ukraine and Russia. If that means Ukraine need to give up territory to Russia, and then get membership in NATO, that sounds like a good long term solution.
And he also managed to get a dialogue going with North Korea.
Let’s hope for a positive future instead of only focusing on the negative. How is Trump in any way responsible for Norway joining NATO? He gets credited for so much stuff he doesn't have anything to do with or even counteracted against. If he would be have been at the helm when Putin invaded we would be in a very different world. He basically wants to abolish NATO to get better deals i guess? Dialogue with North Korea? Are you kidding? He isn’t responsible for Norway joining nato. But he made the members of NATO pay more money to NATO. Peace begins with dialogue. At least he’s trying. Making my point. That wasn't him. It was Russia attacking Ukraine causing this. It was him. He did this before the war.
Fuck right off. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
|
On November 07 2024 02:02 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 01:15 Jealous wrote:On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 19:32 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 18:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 18:36 Uldridge wrote:
A surprising amount of things are based on how people feel about a thing. Weird how that works. Even science.
Could you clarify what you mean by that? Are you talking about the scientific process or how non-scientists feel about science? I'm talking about the process of how we, as humans - organisms that filter a highly selective part of reality - try to understand reality. Don't get me wrong, we understand a vast amount already, but it's possible we're limited in understanding only a fraction of it due to our limitations of the brain. Now, science is a framework that hinges upon the actors being, so to speak, completely objective and truth and reality, or our understanding of that at least, kind of depends on that. Time and time again it has been shown that history, personal and institutional biases, funding etc. get in the way of accurately finding out how things work. People abuse statistics to get more interesting results, replication crisis remains an issue, people try to get funding for potentially futile endeavors because it's trending right now, when other theories that could be as challenging get less because that's how hype and momentum works and humans are not devoid of that. We can agree on basic facts. We can observe things on our world and we can describe them pretty rigorously. Often times, though, a narrative of reality is created that we adhere to because that's the current hype or does a particular thing in that point in time pretty well, but will then be torn to shreds because it was incomplete or because it was simply wrong. And none of it matters really because at the end of the day all you do as a human is sleep, eat, drink, shit, piss, socialize and if you're lucky fuck. It's a feelings based reality we live in. How much energy do you have today? How hungry are you? Our scientifically based jnfrastructure we have is nice, but... completely unnecessary. I'm starting to ramble now so I'll see myself out. Thank you for the clarification, I get what you're saying. The beauty of science is that it is a self-correcting system. If you have bad scientists or bad system implementation (which is what you're describing in the majority of your post), this leads to results that will not be replicated and research that will not lead to new breakthroughs. If you expect scientists to be accurate and correct 100% of the time, that's unfeasible. Mistakes in methodology happen. Data is misinterpreted all the time. It can derail the field in the short term, sure, but in the long-term, no scientist clings to an approach that doesn't work, flawed methodology leads to results that simply do not match reality and are eventually discarded. Scientific consensus emerges and we make progress -- it is designed to be an iterative process after all. I agree with all of that. But if the incentives are bad enough, it can lead to all kinds of bodies of horrible research, founded and built upon more horrible research, that people try to shoehorn into ever more aggressively. Evolution wise, even if a civilization stuck to that, it's likely it would be outcompeted by a civilization that did better science in due course. At it's worst, you're talking about essentially the next scientific dark age. (No, I don't think this is happening or will happen) But it can easily set progress back a decade or three. And cause tremendous pain and wasted energy and resources trying solutions based on science built on a house of cards. Not to mention the issues with creativity and the fact that funding very strongly rewards immediate results doing in paradigm science and shows less interest in studies that accept the null. I believe we're in the dark ages of scientific research because it's all to do with funding and clout and unwillingness to reflect on biases. Replication crisis, predatory journals, actual fraudulence in papers (made up data etc), peer reviews being shit at times because reviewers don't like the research due to it clashing with their work or they want to publish that type of research first. It's crazy. People lose faith in the framework because people abuse everything that's built on the solid foundations. In this aspect I don't think science a self correcting thing any longer. More fundamentally I think it's one of the narratives on how we can shape society, just like religion. It's important becuase it's useful. Make science useless and it's existence stops. As far as reality goes, a thing I wanted to mention that is very apt right now: no matter the facts, if people feel a certain way, you won't change that by flaunting numbers in their faces. Example: people feel unsafe in public spaces, even though empirically speaking, the crime rate has gone down. Saying this won't make a difference. "Reality" in this case is that people, through a variety of paramaters, feel less safe than it actually is. The idea is the find out why that is, not saying that they're wrong. I will direct the same question to yourself as I did to L_master. Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives and that the self-correcting nature of the scientific consensus is not working? I would genuinely like to look at this. On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 19:32 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 18:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 18:36 Uldridge wrote:
A surprising amount of things are based on how people feel about a thing. Weird how that works. Even science.
Could you clarify what you mean by that? Are you talking about the scientific process or how non-scientists feel about science? I'm talking about the process of how we, as humans - organisms that filter a highly selective part of reality - try to understand reality. Don't get me wrong, we understand a vast amount already, but it's possible we're limited in understanding only a fraction of it due to our limitations of the brain. Now, science is a framework that hinges upon the actors being, so to speak, completely objective and truth and reality, or our understanding of that at least, kind of depends on that. Time and time again it has been shown that history, personal and institutional biases, funding etc. get in the way of accurately finding out how things work. People abuse statistics to get more interesting results, replication crisis remains an issue, people try to get funding for potentially futile endeavors because it's trending right now, when other theories that could be as challenging get less because that's how hype and momentum works and humans are not devoid of that. We can agree on basic facts. We can observe things on our world and we can describe them pretty rigorously. Often times, though, a narrative of reality is created that we adhere to because that's the current hype or does a particular thing in that point in time pretty well, but will then be torn to shreds because it was incomplete or because it was simply wrong. And none of it matters really because at the end of the day all you do as a human is sleep, eat, drink, shit, piss, socialize and if you're lucky fuck. It's a feelings based reality we live in. How much energy do you have today? How hungry are you? Our scientifically based jnfrastructure we have is nice, but... completely unnecessary. I'm starting to ramble now so I'll see myself out. Thank you for the clarification, I get what you're saying. The beauty of science is that it is a self-correcting system. If you have bad scientists or bad system implementation (which is what you're describing in the majority of your post), this leads to results that will not be replicated and research that will not lead to new breakthroughs. If you expect scientists to be accurate and correct 100% of the time, that's unfeasible. Mistakes in methodology happen. Data is misinterpreted all the time. It can derail the field in the short term, sure, but in the long-term, no scientist clings to an approach that doesn't work, flawed methodology leads to results that simply do not match reality and are eventually discarded. Scientific consensus emerges and we make progress -- it is designed to be an iterative process after all. I agree with all of that. But if the incentives are bad enough, it can lead to all kinds of bodies of horrible research, founded and built upon more horrible research, that people try to shoehorn into ever more aggressively. Evolution wise, even if a civilization stuck to that, it's likely it would be outcompeted by a civilization that did better science in due course. At it's worst, you're talking about essentially the next scientific dark age. (No, I don't think this is happening or will happen) But it can easily set progress back a decade or three. And cause tremendous pain and wasted energy and resources trying solutions based on science built on a house of cards. Not to mention the issues with creativity and the fact that funding very strongly rewards immediate results doing in paradigm science and shows less interest in studies that accept the null. I believe we're in the dark ages of scientific research because it's all to do with funding and clout and unwillingness to reflect on biases. Replication crisis, predatory journals, actual fraudulence in papers (made up data etc), peer reviews being shit at times because reviewers don't like the research due to it clashing with their work or they want to publish that type of research first. It's crazy. People lose faith in the framework because people abuse everything that's built on the solid foundations. In this aspect I don't think science a self correcting thing any longer. + Show Spoiler +More fundamentally I think it's one of the narratives on how we can shape society, just like religion. It's important becuase it's useful. Make science useless and it's existence stops.
As far as reality goes, a thing I wanted to mention that is very apt right now: no matter the facts, if people feel a certain way, you won't change that by flaunting numbers in their faces.
Example: people feel unsafe in public spaces, even though empirically speaking, the crime rate has gone down. Saying this won't make a difference. "Reality" in this case is that people, through a variety of paramaters, feel less safe than it actually is. The idea is the find out why that is, not saying that they're wrong. Disclaimer: This is going to be a big block of text and it's barely relevant to the topic at hand (election), so if you're not interested in following this line of discussion, just scroll down now. A lot of what I'm going to be writing about in this post is based on my experience in the field of psychology. While I absolutely think that research in psychology is usually a science (as in, adhering to the scientific method), there are also situations where I believe it is not a science so it may not be the best fit for this line of discussion opened by @Ender. However, enough people believe in the validity of the field without digging into whether a "consensus" is reached through scientific or unscientific means, and I will be providing some examples which apply to the sciences at large. I would also like to disclose that I absolutely have a chip on my shoulder about how research is conducted in certain areas of psychology and how conclusions within those fields are arrived at, but I will try to present my position as objectively as possible. --- 1. Grievance studies affairTaking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals on topics from the field of critical social theory such as cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention. 2. Sokal affairThe Sokal affair, additionally known as the Sokal hoax,[1] was a demonstrative scholarly hoax performed by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor, specifically to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies—whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross—[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."[2] 3. Elite researchers in China say they had ‘no choice’ but to commit misconduct“I had no choice but to commit [research] misconduct,” admits a researcher at an elite Chinese university. The shocking revelation is documented in a collection of several dozen anonymous, in-depth interviews offering rare, first-hand accounts of researchers who engaged in unethical behaviour — and describing what tipped them over the edge. An article based on the interviews was published in April in the journal Research Ethics1. Based on my personal experience, this issue is definitely not exclusive to China or Chinese researchers. I could speak about this topic at length but the TL;DR here is that there are situations where social, societal, hierarchical, professional, and financial pressures all lead to "bad" science. "Bad" science here being research done in bad faith, more specifically methods which reject data that goes against a hypothesis that is socially beneficial to espouse. 4. Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuseA US-based biophysicist who is one of the world’s most highly cited researchers has been removed from the editorial board of one journal and barred as a reviewer for another, after repeatedly manipulating the peer-review process to amass citations to his own work. As mentioned above, there is a lot of politics and ego involved in science, because science is conducted by humans who are often bound by politics and ego. This isn't as egregious as submitting entirely fake research and having it published, but it is still a factor in terms of what gets published, who gets published, etc. 5. As Uldridge mentioned, there is also the Replication crisis, which basically infers that a lot of the research we have been relying on for decades has been tainted by the aforementioned "bad" science. The replication crisis[a] is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method,[2] such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially call into question substantial parts of scientific knowledge. 6. At this point I'll go into one of the areas of psychology/psychological research which I was most familiar with due to my work as a research assistant within it. It is also what exposed me to the aforementioned elements of politics, ego, personal sentiment, social pressures, etc. being involved in science. This was shortly after the reclassification of Gender Identity Disorder (GID) into Gender Dysphoria (GD). I was conducting literature analysis on the presentation of GID and GD in new editions of textbooks in order to determine whether they have changed structurally in order to accommodate this reclassification. In short, my research was inspired by what I would consider to be a "pro"-trans position held by the head researcher, as it sought to evaluate whether the stigma of their condition being a "disorder" was appropriately being mitigated. This is something that I was on board with, because I believe that textbooks should present the most accurate and up-to-date information. For example, if one textbook simply changed the title and text of the subchapter GD without moving it out of the "Disorders" chapter, or if GD was squished firmly between the topics of drug addiction and gambling, then perhaps that publisher is not doing their best in understanding and presenting this change from GID to GD. At some point, a question arose in my mind: "Why was this change made in the first place?" While the explanation offered by one of the people who was allegedly on the board* which made this decision does a great job of outlining the logic behind it, the under reason is even more simple reason: it offended people. * I did some cursory research to try to see if I can conclusively place this person on the DSM panel which made this decision, but was unable to do so. However, this is because I'm not finding any comprehensive list anywhere. As it stands, I am inclined to believe that this person was indeed on this panel.It should be noted that the person who posted this is transgender, which may present a conflict of interest, but it's not a claim I will try to argue here. For example, I'm not sure that we should bar people who have an anxiety disorder from doing research on anxiety disorders. However, when it comes to classification and the writing of definitions, I think that there may be a greater possibility of bias seeping in. Anyway, from Natalie Walker's explanation, emphasis mine: The reclassification from an identity issue to a dysphoric issue was a direct result of the stigma and psychological distress of the idea that being transgender was a type of psychiatric disorder, and it absolutely is not. On the surface, this seems very much in line with the removal of homosexuality from the DSM back in 1973. I could discuss the differences between these two decisions, but this is not the crux of the issue for me. The crux of the issue for me is that because the old classifications offend people, they are changed. What were the studies conducted to support this outcome? I can't imagine that there were any real experiments being conducted (due to obvious ethical restraints). As such, I find this to be - within the context of this discussion - not scientific. Yet, research within this field seems to be at least somewhat curated by the governing bodies that be. In other words, if your research goes against the grain of the consensus, that research might not be supported by your university, funded, or published. Even if it is published, it may then be removed or censored. In my personal experience, even broaching the topic of conducting research on what may be a sensitive topic for the transgender community can at the very least be heavily discouraged by your research advisors. For an example beyond my own experience, this article was written by a researcher whose research was allegedly censored because it went against the narrative. Naturally, this is a first-hand source and is thus almost assuredly biased, but I wanted to provide one concrete example within this specific field of research. I'm not saying that research on these topics doesn't happen. After all, there have been some incendiary studies published which report on the prevalent comorbidity of narcissism and GID, as well as some research looking into the hypothesis that there is a prevalent comorbidity with autism (and thus that autism may be a contributing factor to GID). My point is that this type of research is difficult to get off the ground, raises eyebrows, and can receive significant negative backlash. I believe it was Uldridge that mentioned that publishing certain kinds of research can end a person's career. There are many self-reported cases of "blackballing" in various fields of academia for this very reason. I want to be clear that this is not exclusive to the hot button issue of GID and transgender rights. For example, studies on the performance of women vs. men in various disciplines are also affected. I can't find the article now, but one researcher had their research approved for publishing but then the governing body retracted it before publication, meaning that the researcher cannot publish it in a different journal and that no one can read it, either. The were then fired from their position at a western university, which they alleged was because female researchers at their university went on a warpath against them. Why? Because they went against the currently established narrative that women are equal to men in all ways, and thus any findings which purport that women might perform worse in math-related subjects is seen as actively harmful to women, and thus the research has effectively been sealed. I wish I could find this article but I have to head out soon and am running out of time; I'm sure I have it saved somewhere, so if I run into it later I will add it here. Now, I'm not saying that I believe that men are superior to women in math. I just find it unscientific that research which supports this position doesn't see the light of day due to politics and individual feelings, while research supporting absolute equality is incredibly well-represented. Science, in my opinion, should not be constrained by optics. Anyway, I'll circle back to ask: why is GID present in the most up-to-date DSM while something like Body Identity Dysphoria/body integrity identity disorder - roughly, the desire to have a limb amputated - is not? Why do we perform gender-affirming surgeries on people and give them hormone treatments, while the idea of operating on someone with BID/BIID generally dismissed? Representation, politics, and bias are almost certainly contributing factors - and this is almost assuredly the case in other areas of academia as well. Definitely some disciplines are more vulnerable to bad actors than others, with psychology being a prime candidate. Likewise with high impact fields such as anything to do with medicine, where success leads to lots of research funding and even possibly fame, creating an environment where lying to succeed becomes, if not commonplace, uncomfortably common as was pointed out in the study that Uldridge linked and the more recent one I found. Nevertheless, you're still talking about less than 3% of total scientists, or, in other words, 97% of scientists are honest. That's a pretty big number. I would argue that the fact that stuff like the reproducibility project has sprung up as a result of the 'reproducibility crisis' is the self-correcting nature of Science taking direct action. A bunch of researchers realised that a lot of the stuff couldn't be reproduced and was built on very shaky foundations, so they came up with new publishing standards and methodology to ensure that future publications are proofed against this. Again, it's an iterative process. It does not require everyone to get everything right all of the time. Regarding the discussion about research into hot-button topics like "are men better than women" and "should trans people be classified as having a mental disorder": If you actually look at the literature, it is absolutely chock full of articles comparing men vs women in every imaginable combination of tasks, etc. with many finding differences. What is your contention?
I was mostly addressing the first half of your initial queation ("Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives") more so than the latter (self-correction working). I agree with basically everything you've written here.
The only thing I'd reiterate is that even if there is published research which finds a hypothesis to be true (A) and there is research which finds the same hypothesis to not be true (B), that doesn't mean that they both had the same journey toward publication. A may have received generous funding, tons of support from the university, and was welcomed with open arms by a publisher. Meanwhile the researcher behind B lost support when it became evident that their research was going against the established belief, they were ridiculed by their colleagues and superiors, they had to apply to a different university to conduct research there instead, then they were stonewalled by the top journals and could only get published in a minor journal with little recognition and reach. In fact, the researcher behind B wasn't the first one to try, there were many others before them who for one reason or another didn't manage to or didn't want to overcome all of these obstacles. That in itself is the evidence of politics and bad actors in academic research, though I do agree with you that some fields are naturally more susceptible to this than others.
I'd also like to posit that improvement/revision in one field or on one topic does not necessarily imply that it happens everywhere and always, again due to the potential difficulty of even getting approval for research which goes against the grain, much less have it be objectively peer-reviewed and published.
|
This should end Democrats insistence on trying to appeal to Republicans rather than motivating/engaging the 10's of millions of people that mostly agree with them (at least their ostensible views) but don't typically vote for a variety of reasons.
For all their appeals to Republicans, supporting a immigration crackdown, backing genocide, and palling around with Cheney on stage, they made negative progress
|
Northern Ireland22636 Posts
On November 07 2024 02:11 Timebon3s wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 02:04 r00ty wrote:On November 07 2024 01:49 Timebon3s wrote:On November 07 2024 01:47 r00ty wrote:On November 07 2024 01:37 Timebon3s wrote:
Now that the dust has settled and Trump won by a landslide, why wasn’t there more voters in favor of him here on this forum? Is this a very left-leaning forum, or are people simply afraid of saying they support Trump?
Mabye it won’t be as bad as people think.
As far as Europe is concerned, he actually made NATO stronger, which is good for my country at least.
He’s also said he will try to stop the war between Ukraine and Russia. If that means Ukraine need to give up territory to Russia, and then get membership in NATO, that sounds like a good long term solution.
And he also managed to get a dialogue going with North Korea.
Let’s hope for a positive future instead of only focusing on the negative. How is Trump in any way responsible for Norway joining NATO? He gets credited for so much stuff he doesn't have anything to do with or even counteracted against. If he would be have been at the helm when Putin invaded we would be in a very different world. He basically wants to abolish NATO to get better deals i guess? Dialogue with North Korea? Are you kidding? He isn’t responsible for Norway joining nato. But he made the members of NATO pay more money to NATO. Peace begins with dialogue. At least he’s trying. Making my point. That wasn't him. It was Russia attacking Ukraine causing this. It was him. He did this before the war.
Hey I can’t remember the timeline, I’ll trust your recollection
Any credit there will be immediately wiped out, and then some if his administration completely cut off support to Ukraine.
Like great, Americans feel a bit better that some of the European members are pumping more in to NATO. It’s not even entirely unreasonable, hey fair enough
If Trump then fucks off US support for NATO at one of those rare occasions where it’s actually needed to do what it was created to do, all of that is moot and it’s an abject foreign policy failure.
Unless there’s some other scenario where he can drag Putin to heel somehow, and negotiate an acceptable peace. I.e. not having Russia incorporate Ukraine.
That would be an impressive foreign policy achievement.
My prediction is Trump’s weaknesses will bite him in the ass now he’s got some genuinely complicated foreign policy waters to negotiate. But, I may be wrong. I like being smug and correct, but I’d much rather be wrong here!
The problem with his foreign policy is pretty much his general approach to anything. Everything is transactional, and because he doesn’t really believe in genuine cooperation, he’s immediately distrustful and disdainful of those who do.
We’re one punch away from a reasonable foreign policy one-two punch. For me.
Step 1 - The US stops trying to be the world’s policeman. I think it’s fair to say he ticks this box.
Step 2 - The US maintains alliances with historic allies, or those of aligned values, and empowers them and cooperative institutions. Those can pick up slack, so things don’t have to go to shit and harm US interests, or some greater good, but the US isn’t doing all the heavy lifting.
Foreign policy requires some alacrity and a balance of cracking the whip and handing out carrots.
Look I’m going into future hypotheticals but, let’s assume Trump does go all-in on his trade war with China. That’s going to have nasty knock-on effects all over the world.
What’s the next biggest economic bloc in the world, full of historic American allies? Why it’s the EU/Europe. More neutral but also not gigantic fans of China and Chinese ambitions either. I doubt thrilled with the prospect of a trade war, perhaps amenable to some cooperation on China, perhaps not.
They sure as fuck will be less likely to play ball if in the rough same timespan Trump pulls US support from the biggest national security crisis in mainland Europe in quite some time.
|
On November 07 2024 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 00:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2024 00:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 07 2024 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2024 00:02 Uldridge wrote:
It's bad if he votes in spite of you, yeah. Look at where it's getting you.
Build bridges. Try to understand them. I think that's important. Democrats should start surveying people as early as today to find out what the biggest reasons were for Harris's loss. And keep doing it for four years, so that they have some robust information on how best to appeal to voters and effectively communicate that appeal. This is not right. The dems literally did this already. Harris and Walz talked about ways to fix the grievances these people supposedly had. Still got washed. So trying to understand them doesn't make any fucking difference. Harris and Walz lost because this country is fucking stupid. Yes, a lot of voters are fucking stupid. But they still vote. And they'll vote next time, and the time after that. I don't want Republicans to win forever, so I think it's important for Democrats to figure out what the best strategies are for 2028. Bold of you to assume that a democracy destroying dictator is going to have 2028 elections
I think Trump's age and health are working against him, to the point where he might not physically be able to run for a 3rd term in 3-4 years, even if he wanted to. (I don't believe that the Supreme Court or Congressional Republicans would stop Trump with something as trivial as the U.S. Constitution if Trump reeeeeeeally wanted a third term, so I'm banking on him being too old and frail by then.)
|
On November 07 2024 02:02 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 01:23 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2024 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:15 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2024 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:03 Uldridge wrote:
What is the average knowledge gap between economic experts and your average working man?
I fear the gap is so large that whatever they may say just doesn't matter. Trump is "getting stuff done".
Forget macro economic cycles that take 20 years to play out or whatever the fuck, they want stuff done NOW. And he did that and Biden didn't. That's how you lose I guess. The knowledge gap seems to be entirety of the experts knowledge. As in the average working man has absolutely 0 clue how anything economic works. And yet it's those working men you need to convince to vote for your economic plan, or else win their vote some other way. How's the old saying go? The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter? This is how it works. It doesnt have to make sense. But it's the reality of the system we've chosen for ourselves. That's why the guy who just lies and shouts bullshit won. You don't need to explain it to them, in fact explaining it just makes them more confused. Just lie, its easier and you don't get punished for it. No see this is the part the Democrats don't understand. Republicans already have a lock on the party of liars. They're in bed with the Christian Right. They will NEVER lose that block of voters ever as long as they continue to promise to promote conservative judges. That's the only thing the Christian Right needs to keep voting for them forever. Democrats need to be the party that explains things, that makes them make sense. If they are just the guys shouting bullshit to counter the Republicans' bullshit then that causes voter turn out among moderates and more educated liberals to crater. Democrats need to win the game correctly. It's difficult but it's the only way they will ever win. Getting into mud throwing contests with the Republicans benefits them and ONLY them. Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 01:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 07 2024 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 07 2024 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 00:44 EnDeR_ wrote:
I wonder if Trump's base enthusiasm will be dented when the Trump tax cuts expire in the middle of his new term. I'm sure they will find a way to push that back But wouldn't that massively increase the deficit? Isn't that supposed to be bad for the economy? Republicans only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House. See the deficit under Trump increasing every year. Democrats need to 1000% embrace the Republican tactic of using whatever you can find to bludgeon the other party over the head at all times, regardless of the hypocrisy or the facts. Don't give them room to breathe. The only reason R's get any airtime when they bang on about hypocrisy is because we let them. Jump down their throats and don't let them breathe in the rhetorical space. Democrats have policy that makes things better and they know it. But people don't give a shit about policy, they respond to charisma and "fight". Democrats have been so scared of looking like they might be fighting back that they left the floor open to Trump. They should be rallying and holding addresses to the nation on a weekly basis. Call Republicans out for the fucking spineless cowards they are and stand up on their own two feet as a party. But also, they should've been doing this since January 2021. If we forget about January 6th it's because the Democrats decided it wasn't that big of a deal. Fuck. I’m with Vindicare here. Trump’s own party can’t replicate his shtick, hence him trouncing primaries, the Dems have even less chance. As you all know I rarely use analogies, but I’m quite a reserved, deadpan, sarcastic kinda guy. One of my best friends is Mr Extrovert, could arrange a date in the 5 minutes he meets some girl at a bus stop etc etc. He may have had more luck with the ladies, and a totally different kind than kinda my type, but hey I have a niche and did alright. If I had started emulating him, it would have been a disaster as it’s not my manner, and the kinda girls I like also don’t really like the whole ‘alpha male’ shtick either. I think you can go on the attack, but in a different style. We need Bernie Sanders to run again. That’s my plan. Not Bernard Sandals specifically, I kid but that for me is the vague model. 1) He didn’t pull punches 2) He attacked the problems that many people suffer from, but crucially in a more systemic, non-personal fashion 3) He directly linked his critiques with easy to understand solutions 4) Not 100% effectively, but he largely sidestepped too much ‘culture war’ stuff 5) People liked him, or, at least considered him a decent or principled bloke You can still maintain a passion, some moral outrage that resonates while not diving headfirst into the same sty as a Donald Trump.
Bernie Sanders could not even win the Democratic primary. If the Democratic party wants that type of candidate they're truly out of ideas.
|
On November 07 2024 02:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2024 00:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2024 00:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 07 2024 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2024 00:02 Uldridge wrote:
It's bad if he votes in spite of you, yeah. Look at where it's getting you.
Build bridges. Try to understand them. I think that's important. Democrats should start surveying people as early as today to find out what the biggest reasons were for Harris's loss. And keep doing it for four years, so that they have some robust information on how best to appeal to voters and effectively communicate that appeal. This is not right. The dems literally did this already. Harris and Walz talked about ways to fix the grievances these people supposedly had. Still got washed. So trying to understand them doesn't make any fucking difference. Harris and Walz lost because this country is fucking stupid. Yes, a lot of voters are fucking stupid. But they still vote. And they'll vote next time, and the time after that. I don't want Republicans to win forever, so I think it's important for Democrats to figure out what the best strategies are for 2028. Bold of you to assume that a democracy destroying dictator is going to have 2028 elections I think Trump's age and health are working against him, to the point where he might not physically be able to run for a 3rd term in 3-4 years, even if he wanted to. (I don't believe that the Supreme Court or Congressional Republicans would stop Trump with something as trivial as the U.S. Constitution if Trump reeeeeeeally wanted a third term, so I'm banking on him being too old and frail by then.) Which is why he would run an Apprentice style program to name his successor and the "news" media would fight over broadcasting rights.
Hey, maybe he'll let people call in and vote for their preference for $1.99 a vote or something?
|
On November 07 2024 02:42 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 02:02 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2024 01:23 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2024 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:15 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2024 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:03 Uldridge wrote:
What is the average knowledge gap between economic experts and your average working man?
I fear the gap is so large that whatever they may say just doesn't matter. Trump is "getting stuff done".
Forget macro economic cycles that take 20 years to play out or whatever the fuck, they want stuff done NOW. And he did that and Biden didn't. That's how you lose I guess. The knowledge gap seems to be entirety of the experts knowledge. As in the average working man has absolutely 0 clue how anything economic works. And yet it's those working men you need to convince to vote for your economic plan, or else win their vote some other way. How's the old saying go? The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter? This is how it works. It doesnt have to make sense. But it's the reality of the system we've chosen for ourselves. That's why the guy who just lies and shouts bullshit won. You don't need to explain it to them, in fact explaining it just makes them more confused. Just lie, its easier and you don't get punished for it. No see this is the part the Democrats don't understand. Republicans already have a lock on the party of liars. They're in bed with the Christian Right. They will NEVER lose that block of voters ever as long as they continue to promise to promote conservative judges. That's the only thing the Christian Right needs to keep voting for them forever. Democrats need to be the party that explains things, that makes them make sense. If they are just the guys shouting bullshit to counter the Republicans' bullshit then that causes voter turn out among moderates and more educated liberals to crater. Democrats need to win the game correctly. It's difficult but it's the only way they will ever win. Getting into mud throwing contests with the Republicans benefits them and ONLY them. On November 07 2024 01:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 07 2024 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 07 2024 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 00:44 EnDeR_ wrote:
I wonder if Trump's base enthusiasm will be dented when the Trump tax cuts expire in the middle of his new term. I'm sure they will find a way to push that back But wouldn't that massively increase the deficit? Isn't that supposed to be bad for the economy? Republicans only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House. See the deficit under Trump increasing every year. Democrats need to 1000% embrace the Republican tactic of using whatever you can find to bludgeon the other party over the head at all times, regardless of the hypocrisy or the facts. Don't give them room to breathe. The only reason R's get any airtime when they bang on about hypocrisy is because we let them. Jump down their throats and don't let them breathe in the rhetorical space. Democrats have policy that makes things better and they know it. But people don't give a shit about policy, they respond to charisma and "fight". Democrats have been so scared of looking like they might be fighting back that they left the floor open to Trump. They should be rallying and holding addresses to the nation on a weekly basis. Call Republicans out for the fucking spineless cowards they are and stand up on their own two feet as a party. But also, they should've been doing this since January 2021. If we forget about January 6th it's because the Democrats decided it wasn't that big of a deal. Fuck. I’m with Vindicare here. Trump’s own party can’t replicate his shtick, hence him trouncing primaries, the Dems have even less chance. As you all know I rarely use analogies, but I’m quite a reserved, deadpan, sarcastic kinda guy. One of my best friends is Mr Extrovert, could arrange a date in the 5 minutes he meets some girl at a bus stop etc etc. He may have had more luck with the ladies, and a totally different kind than kinda my type, but hey I have a niche and did alright. If I had started emulating him, it would have been a disaster as it’s not my manner, and the kinda girls I like also don’t really like the whole ‘alpha male’ shtick either. I think you can go on the attack, but in a different style. We need Bernie Sanders to run again. That’s my plan. Not Bernard Sandals specifically, I kid but that for me is the vague model. 1) He didn’t pull punches 2) He attacked the problems that many people suffer from, but crucially in a more systemic, non-personal fashion 3) He directly linked his critiques with easy to understand solutions 4) Not 100% effectively, but he largely sidestepped too much ‘culture war’ stuff 5) People liked him, or, at least considered him a decent or principled bloke You can still maintain a passion, some moral outrage that resonates while not diving headfirst into the same sty as a Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders could not even win the Democratic primary. If the Democratic party wants that type of candidate they're truly out of ideas.
Ah yes, Kamala Harris noted Democratic primary winner lmao
|
Northern Ireland22636 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 00:17 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 23:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 06 2024 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
The Guardian is characterizing this as 'fear winning over hope'.
If you watched Harris and that somehow gave you hope for something, I'm worried for you.
What hope was there with the Democrats anyway? Ooh I really hope everything stays kinda shit. Yeah this is entirely the wrong take. Here's the thing about Trump: He does say some outrageous stuff that demonizes 'the other'. No question about that. But the way he phrases himself doesn't make you afraid of the other party - it makes you angry at them, and then - he provides a vision for how to fix it. It might be a stupid vision with no realistic plan for how to get there, but he's not making you afraid of the future. He always focuses on that he's going to make everything great, it'll be the best it's ever been. Meanwhile his opponents are talking about how dangerous electing this nutjob to a greater degree than they focus on how great things will be if they win. Brexit was the same thing. Obama - that's someone who offered hope and change. Democrats following him haven't been. To be fair, this type of messaging is much easier when you're not in charge. To be fair to Trump he'd probably have won 2020 if not for covid, but I also think campaigning is much easier for him, in general, when he's not the incumbent. Incidentally, my wife happens to do a PhD on political communication and in particular what types of messaging evokes what type of emotion, and what type of emotion creates political engagement. She's generally not one to blurt out predictions with any type of confidence. But she was highly confident in a Trump victory. Brexit IDK, it was effectively a vote on policy itself, rather than parties or candidates, of course there’s parties involved. So I think the fear/anger dynamic is a bit different then The messaging was more mixed than that between benefits/downsides of leaving than people recall now. The messaging wasn’t even that bad Here's a relevant article! https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/4758/2546+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://tl.net/staff/LiquidDrone/graphs/emotionalappeals.png) Like not to detract from the discussion but it's very rare that I have a this good source of knowledge of something as specific as the emotional appeals of various brexit politicians.  While UKIP has a bit of fear to their posts, you can see a pretty stark contrast between say, Farage/BoJo and David Cameron, or Labour.
Interesting, albeit a depressing trip down memory lane. Thank you good sir, I shall perhaps save it to my archives, today’s already melted my head enough to read imminently I think :p
|
On November 07 2024 02:38 GreenHorizons wrote:This should end Democrats insistence on trying to appeal to Republicans rather than motivating/engaging the 10's of millions of people that mostly agree with them (at least their ostensible views) but don't typically vote for a variety of reasons. For all their appeals to Republicans, supporting a immigration crackdown, backing genocide, and palling around with Cheney on stage, they made negative progress https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1854089215585239376
I think this is a too-hard-learned lesson. While I don't think there was anything wrong with building a coalition that incidentally includes prominent Republicans as a show of how repugnant the other side is, going out of your way to court a base that has been highly radicalized and insulated from reality is a fools errand...
|
On November 07 2024 02:44 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 02:38 GreenHorizons wrote:This should end Democrats insistence on trying to appeal to Republicans rather than motivating/engaging the 10's of millions of people that mostly agree with them (at least their ostensible views) but don't typically vote for a variety of reasons. For all their appeals to Republicans, supporting a immigration crackdown, backing genocide, and palling around with Cheney on stage, they made negative progress https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1854089215585239376 I think this is a too-hard-learned lesson. While I don't think there was anything wrong with building a coalition that incidentally includes prominent Republicans as a show of how repugnant the other side is, going out of your way to court a base that has been highly radicalized and insulated from reality is a fools errand...
I'm really going to drive home that the people desperately trying to get Democrats to learn this lesson (and other related ones) for decades have to be lifted up by those rank-and-file types still committed to the party at the expense of those that shouted them down.
Any serious considerations about how Democrats move forward from here has to start with that base condition.
|
Northern Ireland22636 Posts
On November 07 2024 02:42 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 02:02 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2024 01:23 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2024 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:15 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2024 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:03 Uldridge wrote:
What is the average knowledge gap between economic experts and your average working man?
I fear the gap is so large that whatever they may say just doesn't matter. Trump is "getting stuff done".
Forget macro economic cycles that take 20 years to play out or whatever the fuck, they want stuff done NOW. And he did that and Biden didn't. That's how you lose I guess. The knowledge gap seems to be entirety of the experts knowledge. As in the average working man has absolutely 0 clue how anything economic works. And yet it's those working men you need to convince to vote for your economic plan, or else win their vote some other way. How's the old saying go? The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter? This is how it works. It doesnt have to make sense. But it's the reality of the system we've chosen for ourselves. That's why the guy who just lies and shouts bullshit won. You don't need to explain it to them, in fact explaining it just makes them more confused. Just lie, its easier and you don't get punished for it. No see this is the part the Democrats don't understand. Republicans already have a lock on the party of liars. They're in bed with the Christian Right. They will NEVER lose that block of voters ever as long as they continue to promise to promote conservative judges. That's the only thing the Christian Right needs to keep voting for them forever. Democrats need to be the party that explains things, that makes them make sense. If they are just the guys shouting bullshit to counter the Republicans' bullshit then that causes voter turn out among moderates and more educated liberals to crater. Democrats need to win the game correctly. It's difficult but it's the only way they will ever win. Getting into mud throwing contests with the Republicans benefits them and ONLY them. On November 07 2024 01:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 07 2024 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 07 2024 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 00:44 EnDeR_ wrote:
I wonder if Trump's base enthusiasm will be dented when the Trump tax cuts expire in the middle of his new term. I'm sure they will find a way to push that back But wouldn't that massively increase the deficit? Isn't that supposed to be bad for the economy? Republicans only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House. See the deficit under Trump increasing every year. Democrats need to 1000% embrace the Republican tactic of using whatever you can find to bludgeon the other party over the head at all times, regardless of the hypocrisy or the facts. Don't give them room to breathe. The only reason R's get any airtime when they bang on about hypocrisy is because we let them. Jump down their throats and don't let them breathe in the rhetorical space. Democrats have policy that makes things better and they know it. But people don't give a shit about policy, they respond to charisma and "fight". Democrats have been so scared of looking like they might be fighting back that they left the floor open to Trump. They should be rallying and holding addresses to the nation on a weekly basis. Call Republicans out for the fucking spineless cowards they are and stand up on their own two feet as a party. But also, they should've been doing this since January 2021. If we forget about January 6th it's because the Democrats decided it wasn't that big of a deal. Fuck. I’m with Vindicare here. Trump’s own party can’t replicate his shtick, hence him trouncing primaries, the Dems have even less chance. As you all know I rarely use analogies, but I’m quite a reserved, deadpan, sarcastic kinda guy. One of my best friends is Mr Extrovert, could arrange a date in the 5 minutes he meets some girl at a bus stop etc etc. He may have had more luck with the ladies, and a totally different kind than kinda my type, but hey I have a niche and did alright. If I had started emulating him, it would have been a disaster as it’s not my manner, and the kinda girls I like also don’t really like the whole ‘alpha male’ shtick either. I think you can go on the attack, but in a different style. We need Bernie Sanders to run again. That’s my plan. Not Bernard Sandals specifically, I kid but that for me is the vague model. 1) He didn’t pull punches 2) He attacked the problems that many people suffer from, but crucially in a more systemic, non-personal fashion 3) He directly linked his critiques with easy to understand solutions 4) Not 100% effectively, but he largely sidestepped too much ‘culture war’ stuff 5) People liked him, or, at least considered him a decent or principled bloke You can still maintain a passion, some moral outrage that resonates while not diving headfirst into the same sty as a Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders could not even win the Democratic primary. If the Democratic party wants that type of candidate they're truly out of ideas.
He could still win…
I did throw the caveat in that I’m not talking Sanders specifically as a person, but his general approach to campaigning being something I’d emulate, versus emulating Trump or the approach of recent Democratic nominees
My preference is also for his politics, but to clarify I’m also not advocating for that kind of platform to be fully adopted either. Would like it, dunno if it’s too much for the US to stomach.
Trump himself overshadows this quite considerably, and for reasonable enough reasons.
I think people forget that Sanders was the most successful, radical non-establishment candidate in the country for quite some time. Probably since Ross Perot maybe?
You can’t learn anything from the guy with a platform I myself would have considered too left to be even competitive, and his grass roots enthusiasm and financial support?
|
the world is healing 
|
I cannot wait until 2036 when Drumpf endorses the Democratic candidate Chelsea Clinton after Ron Desantis steals the primary nomination from Eric Trump and then I get to hear how that proves Ron Desantis was the real Hitler all along because even Drumpf breaks from him.
|
Regarding Academic Fraud ... The whole Gallo Monteigner thing with HIV was super fishy. They both discovered HIV at the same time? 1 guy in the USA and 1 guy in France. Then Gallo gets kicked out of the club while Monteigner wins a Noble Prize.
Gallo goes from guilty of fraud to not guilty of fraud and then back to guilty of fraud again.
There is lots of academic fraud around dinosaur bones as well.
|
On November 07 2024 01:39 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 23:59 Salazarz wrote:On November 06 2024 23:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 23:38 oBlade wrote:
They didn't vote against their interests. You don't know what their interests are. There is not an objective "interest." They voted for their interests because voting is fundamentally not a masochistic act. The number one issue for Republicans was the economy. Trump is objectively worse for the economy than Biden/Harris. Therefore, yes, a large number of Trump voters voted against their primary interest. For most people, when they talk about 'economy' they don't care about GDP, CPI, or inflation numbers that government presents to them. What they care about is whether their expenses go up or down in relation to their earnings; so when Democrats talk about how Biden totally navigated the inflation so well and how GDP is growing and economy is doing oh so well, I'd imagine that feels like a huge spit in the face to all the people who are, simply put, worse off than they were a year or two ago -- of which there are very, very many. And for that reason, Democrats need to be able to better communicate the context and voters need to be willing to listen and/or learn. Democrats failed at communication, and voters failed at understanding how this works. As was cited before, all of the ideal policies in the world unfortunately don't matter if the optics are inferior. (Also, Harris didn't run on GDP growth; she ran on reducing the costs of groceries and medicine and childcare and housing, etc. oBlade brought up GDP growth.) bolded - This is partially right, I think they failed at more things Italic - this perspective always amuses me, it is pure superiority complex. (unless you mean Kamala voters because objectively they are the ones that failed, as Kamala lost)
That topic is the economy. If people voted for Trump because they thought Trump was better for the economy, then (besides a communication failure from Harris/Democrats), the Trump voters were the ones who were mistaken (because they're wrong about Trump being better for the economy). Harris losing does not mean that Trump voters were correct (if they thought that Trump was better for the economy). Here's an easier scenario: Suppose someone voted for Harris because they thought she was older than Trump. That voter would be mistaken, because she's not older than Trump (and this is independent of whether or not Harris wins or loses).
Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 00:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2024 00:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 07 2024 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2024 00:02 Uldridge wrote:
It's bad if he votes in spite of you, yeah. Look at where it's getting you.
Build bridges. Try to understand them. I think that's important. Democrats should start surveying people as early as today to find out what the biggest reasons were for Harris's loss. And keep doing it for four years, so that they have some robust information on how best to appeal to voters and effectively communicate that appeal. This is not right. The dems literally did this already. Harris and Walz talked about ways to fix the grievances these people supposedly had. Still got washed. So trying to understand them doesn't make any fucking difference. Harris and Walz lost because this country is fucking stupid. Yes, a lot of voters are fucking stupid. But they still vote. And they'll vote next time, and the time after that. I don't want Republicans to win forever, so I think it's important for Democrats to figure out what the best strategies are for 2028. Again superiority complex, if you "don't want Republicans to win forever" (for what is worth I think next election goes to Democrats by default almost) then maybe dont refer to voters as stupid? Crazy idea, but maybe treat them (or at least pretend to) as your equals (you know all that DEI stuff)? In general for "I think x is better for me": argument "no you are wrong here is why..." is less effective than " but dont you think that x may result in y which will affect you negatively?"
Socratic questioning can indeed be effective. Recognizing that someone isn't educated on a topic doesn't mean you need to call them stupid to their face and then assume that they'll be persuaded by you lol.
|
Northern Ireland22636 Posts
On November 07 2024 02:38 GreenHorizons wrote:This should end Democrats insistence on trying to appeal to Republicans rather than motivating/engaging the 10's of millions of people that mostly agree with them (at least their ostensible views) but don't typically vote for a variety of reasons. For all their appeals to Republicans, supporting a immigration crackdown, backing genocide, and palling around with Cheney on stage, they made negative progress https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1854089215585239376
Oooooof
I wonder what the numbers for self-described independents are?
On November 07 2024 02:44 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 02:38 GreenHorizons wrote:This should end Democrats insistence on trying to appeal to Republicans rather than motivating/engaging the 10's of millions of people that mostly agree with them (at least their ostensible views) but don't typically vote for a variety of reasons. For all their appeals to Republicans, supporting a immigration crackdown, backing genocide, and palling around with Cheney on stage, they made negative progress https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1854089215585239376 I think this is a too-hard-learned lesson. While I don't think there was anything wrong with building a coalition that incidentally includes prominent Republicans as a show of how repugnant the other side is, going out of your way to court a base that has been highly radicalized and insulated from reality is a fools errand...
Who’s doing this strategising?
I don’t understand how you can have smart, savvy political strategists poring over all the numbers going, funded to the teeth and you do this again.
Something some hobbyist discussors on a StarCraft forum largely (from memory) agreed was a fucking daft strategy? Certainly GH and I I remember, I’m pretty sure quite a few more
The mind fucking boggles, it really does.
It was pretty damn clear from almost the off that this was going to be an election about galvanising your bases and driving out turnout. Argh
|
On November 07 2024 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That topic is the economy. If people voted for Trump because they thought Trump was better for the economy, then (besides a communication failure from Harris/Democrats), the Trump voters were the ones who were mistaken (because they're wrong about Trump being better for the economy). Harris losing does not mean that Trump voters were correct (if they thought that Trump was better for the economy). Here's an easier scenario: Suppose someone voted for Harris because they thought she was older than Trump. That voter would be mistaken, because she's not older than Trump (and this is independent of whether or not Harris wins or loses)
Trump might be better for the economy. We'll have more info to go on in 4 years.
I am optimistic about the US economic outlook.
In other 'man on the street' type reactions...
"How to move to Canada" searches up 100X today. Source: Toronto Star and Google Trends.
Clearly, many do not share my optimism.
|
On November 07 2024 02:43 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 02:42 RvB wrote:On November 07 2024 02:02 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2024 01:23 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2024 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:15 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2024 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:03 Uldridge wrote:
What is the average knowledge gap between economic experts and your average working man?
I fear the gap is so large that whatever they may say just doesn't matter. Trump is "getting stuff done".
Forget macro economic cycles that take 20 years to play out or whatever the fuck, they want stuff done NOW. And he did that and Biden didn't. That's how you lose I guess. The knowledge gap seems to be entirety of the experts knowledge. As in the average working man has absolutely 0 clue how anything economic works. And yet it's those working men you need to convince to vote for your economic plan, or else win their vote some other way. How's the old saying go? The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter? This is how it works. It doesnt have to make sense. But it's the reality of the system we've chosen for ourselves. That's why the guy who just lies and shouts bullshit won. You don't need to explain it to them, in fact explaining it just makes them more confused. Just lie, its easier and you don't get punished for it. No see this is the part the Democrats don't understand. Republicans already have a lock on the party of liars. They're in bed with the Christian Right. They will NEVER lose that block of voters ever as long as they continue to promise to promote conservative judges. That's the only thing the Christian Right needs to keep voting for them forever. Democrats need to be the party that explains things, that makes them make sense. If they are just the guys shouting bullshit to counter the Republicans' bullshit then that causes voter turn out among moderates and more educated liberals to crater. Democrats need to win the game correctly. It's difficult but it's the only way they will ever win. Getting into mud throwing contests with the Republicans benefits them and ONLY them. On November 07 2024 01:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 07 2024 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 07 2024 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 00:44 EnDeR_ wrote:
I wonder if Trump's base enthusiasm will be dented when the Trump tax cuts expire in the middle of his new term. I'm sure they will find a way to push that back But wouldn't that massively increase the deficit? Isn't that supposed to be bad for the economy? Republicans only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House. See the deficit under Trump increasing every year. Democrats need to 1000% embrace the Republican tactic of using whatever you can find to bludgeon the other party over the head at all times, regardless of the hypocrisy or the facts. Don't give them room to breathe. The only reason R's get any airtime when they bang on about hypocrisy is because we let them. Jump down their throats and don't let them breathe in the rhetorical space. Democrats have policy that makes things better and they know it. But people don't give a shit about policy, they respond to charisma and "fight". Democrats have been so scared of looking like they might be fighting back that they left the floor open to Trump. They should be rallying and holding addresses to the nation on a weekly basis. Call Republicans out for the fucking spineless cowards they are and stand up on their own two feet as a party. But also, they should've been doing this since January 2021. If we forget about January 6th it's because the Democrats decided it wasn't that big of a deal. Fuck. I’m with Vindicare here. Trump’s own party can’t replicate his shtick, hence him trouncing primaries, the Dems have even less chance. As you all know I rarely use analogies, but I’m quite a reserved, deadpan, sarcastic kinda guy. One of my best friends is Mr Extrovert, could arrange a date in the 5 minutes he meets some girl at a bus stop etc etc. He may have had more luck with the ladies, and a totally different kind than kinda my type, but hey I have a niche and did alright. If I had started emulating him, it would have been a disaster as it’s not my manner, and the kinda girls I like also don’t really like the whole ‘alpha male’ shtick either. I think you can go on the attack, but in a different style. We need Bernie Sanders to run again. That’s my plan. Not Bernard Sandals specifically, I kid but that for me is the vague model. 1) He didn’t pull punches 2) He attacked the problems that many people suffer from, but crucially in a more systemic, non-personal fashion 3) He directly linked his critiques with easy to understand solutions 4) Not 100% effectively, but he largely sidestepped too much ‘culture war’ stuff 5) People liked him, or, at least considered him a decent or principled bloke You can still maintain a passion, some moral outrage that resonates while not diving headfirst into the same sty as a Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders could not even win the Democratic primary. If the Democratic party wants that type of candidate they're truly out of ideas. Ah yes, Kamala Harris noted Democratic primary winner lmao
I doubt Harris was anyone's preferred candidate. There really was not much of a choice because Biden dropped out way too late.
On November 07 2024 02:51 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 02:42 RvB wrote:On November 07 2024 02:02 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2024 01:23 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2024 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:15 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2024 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:03 Uldridge wrote:
What is the average knowledge gap between economic experts and your average working man?
I fear the gap is so large that whatever they may say just doesn't matter. Trump is "getting stuff done".
Forget macro economic cycles that take 20 years to play out or whatever the fuck, they want stuff done NOW. And he did that and Biden didn't. That's how you lose I guess. The knowledge gap seems to be entirety of the experts knowledge. As in the average working man has absolutely 0 clue how anything economic works. And yet it's those working men you need to convince to vote for your economic plan, or else win their vote some other way. How's the old saying go? The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter? This is how it works. It doesnt have to make sense. But it's the reality of the system we've chosen for ourselves. That's why the guy who just lies and shouts bullshit won. You don't need to explain it to them, in fact explaining it just makes them more confused. Just lie, its easier and you don't get punished for it. No see this is the part the Democrats don't understand. Republicans already have a lock on the party of liars. They're in bed with the Christian Right. They will NEVER lose that block of voters ever as long as they continue to promise to promote conservative judges. That's the only thing the Christian Right needs to keep voting for them forever. Democrats need to be the party that explains things, that makes them make sense. If they are just the guys shouting bullshit to counter the Republicans' bullshit then that causes voter turn out among moderates and more educated liberals to crater. Democrats need to win the game correctly. It's difficult but it's the only way they will ever win. Getting into mud throwing contests with the Republicans benefits them and ONLY them. On November 07 2024 01:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 07 2024 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 07 2024 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 00:44 EnDeR_ wrote:
I wonder if Trump's base enthusiasm will be dented when the Trump tax cuts expire in the middle of his new term. I'm sure they will find a way to push that back But wouldn't that massively increase the deficit? Isn't that supposed to be bad for the economy? Republicans only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House. See the deficit under Trump increasing every year. Democrats need to 1000% embrace the Republican tactic of using whatever you can find to bludgeon the other party over the head at all times, regardless of the hypocrisy or the facts. Don't give them room to breathe. The only reason R's get any airtime when they bang on about hypocrisy is because we let them. Jump down their throats and don't let them breathe in the rhetorical space. Democrats have policy that makes things better and they know it. But people don't give a shit about policy, they respond to charisma and "fight". Democrats have been so scared of looking like they might be fighting back that they left the floor open to Trump. They should be rallying and holding addresses to the nation on a weekly basis. Call Republicans out for the fucking spineless cowards they are and stand up on their own two feet as a party. But also, they should've been doing this since January 2021. If we forget about January 6th it's because the Democrats decided it wasn't that big of a deal. Fuck. I’m with Vindicare here. Trump’s own party can’t replicate his shtick, hence him trouncing primaries, the Dems have even less chance. As you all know I rarely use analogies, but I’m quite a reserved, deadpan, sarcastic kinda guy. One of my best friends is Mr Extrovert, could arrange a date in the 5 minutes he meets some girl at a bus stop etc etc. He may have had more luck with the ladies, and a totally different kind than kinda my type, but hey I have a niche and did alright. If I had started emulating him, it would have been a disaster as it’s not my manner, and the kinda girls I like also don’t really like the whole ‘alpha male’ shtick either. I think you can go on the attack, but in a different style. We need Bernie Sanders to run again. That’s my plan. Not Bernard Sandals specifically, I kid but that for me is the vague model. 1) He didn’t pull punches 2) He attacked the problems that many people suffer from, but crucially in a more systemic, non-personal fashion 3) He directly linked his critiques with easy to understand solutions 4) Not 100% effectively, but he largely sidestepped too much ‘culture war’ stuff 5) People liked him, or, at least considered him a decent or principled bloke You can still maintain a passion, some moral outrage that resonates while not diving headfirst into the same sty as a Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders could not even win the Democratic primary. If the Democratic party wants that type of candidate they're truly out of ideas. He could still win… I did throw the caveat in that I’m not talking Sanders specifically as a person, but his general approach to campaigning being something I’d emulate, versus emulating Trump or the approach of recent Democratic nominees My preference is also for his politics, but to clarify I’m also not advocating for that kind of platform to be fully adopted either. Would like it, dunno if it’s too much for the US to stomach. Trump himself overshadows this quite considerably, and for reasonable enough reasons. I think people forget that Sanders was the most successful, radical non-establishment candidate in the country for quite some time. Probably since Ross Perot maybe? You can’t learn anything from the guy with a platform I myself would have considered too left to be even competitive, and his grass roots enthusiasm and financial support?
Trump is the most successful radical non establishment candidate in the country in recent times. I'm sure there's things to learn from Sanders campaigning. That does not make him, or someone like him, a good candidate for the presidential election. It's similar to Corbyn in the UK, popular with the grassroots but a poor candidate in the general elections.
|
Sounds like radical non establishment candidates are doin' pretty good then, maybe Democrats should give it a try
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
