***Official H&F LC Thread***
A valid strategy for getting ripped imo.
(From http://extrafabulouscomics.com/, kyleb's (RIP) favorite web comic)
I think I’m right in saying that left leaning parties across most/all of the western world are skewing increasingly female and right leaning skewing increasingly male.
Rather than arguing about intelligence, Melk could have simply made claims about education level as it pertained to Trump and Harris support (he referenced it, but only to try to correlate that to intelligence, which was odd). BUT....college educated men voted for Kamala and Trump roughly equally. Woman (college educated and non-college educated) favored Harris, again showing the stronger gender divide.
wow this is so problematic, sweetie. I am going to put down my avocado toast to educate you, okay sweetie?
BLM is an entirely peaceful movement and black people are far less violent than white people (I have interacted with exactly one black person in the last month, an obese HR lady with a business degree she barely earned passing grades for and was definitely not a DEI hire). The main mass shooters are WHITE REPUBLICAN INCEL MISOGYNISTS OKAY? They don't get women because of their bad personali
Wait till you hear that I think men are more likely to commit violent crime than women. Pretty sure its straight to Nuremberg for me. Which ironically is not that far away from where some of my forebearers originated.
If I had an IQ off vs Trump or Kamala voters, I am trying to think what the optimal bankroll Kelly bet would be??
I am not sure, but it certainly is much higher vs the average Trump voter.
Now this doesn't mean I think all Trump supporters are dumb. Obviously plenty of them will beat me, just saying give me the average Trump supporter all day.
Kamala ain't that smart, failed the bar her first time. But no facking way Trump can ever pass the bar, he is dumb as shiet. All in, IQ off vs The D
A p huge amount v either. Most 80y olds are senile as fk. Kamala is literally a woman who sexed her way to her position. She literally gave some head to get ahead. While its a funny trope, it is also amusing.
A better question would be, what kelly stakes would you bet vs a black person, white person and asian person. Maybe you get get one of those black asian people from the Islands of the Blacks, but it doesn't matter under a normal dist.
Now if you wanna argue the distribution is not normal... k.
I think I’m right in saying that left leaning parties across most/all of the western world are skewing increasingly female and right leaning skewing increasingly male.
This is pretty obv true.
It is also true that Yurop knows virtually nothing about politics in America or what is commonly believed. Nordic countries are the bastion of modern right wing populism and it would behoove us all to pause for a moment and consider why they started this, why they are incredibly popular, and why many of their views are increasingly vilified by allegedly "smart" people.
Melk,
I'm not reading all that, but I think you'd agree that the average IQ or g or whatever you want to use as a proxy for intelligence of college graduates must have gone down (relatively speaking) over the last thirty years as college attendance has increased (this is, of course, assuming that levels of intelligence can actually be measured in ways that aren't racist or sexist or biased against other ways of knowing). I think you'd get more accurate results if you segmented for major or sex or other such metrics, but I'd guess that may prove undesirable?
Also, re: crime levels falling being an objective fact from a few hundred thousand words back:
In 2023, the FBI released its annual Crime in the Nation report, showing an estimated 1.7 percent decrease in violent crime in 2022. The Biden-Harris Administration championed the purported decrease, but there was no decrease. The FBI failed to include in its initial count “an additional 1,699 murders, 7,780 rapes, 33,459 robberies, and 37,091 aggravated assaults,” resulting in not a decrease but an increase in violent crime of 4.5 percent in 2022. The FBI quietly revised the report to reflect this increase in violent crime but did not publicize it.
The thing you've repeatedly failed to grasp is that people (in general) don't trust your "facts" when they conflict with their lived experience, and the left's credibility is beyond abysmal; arguing from a position of intellectual superiority and arrogance may feel great, but as others have noted, beyond the fact that it may not even be true, it's terrible strategy even if it is true (which I think it probably is wrt average IQ of left vs right voters, albeit not in a way that's significant from a practical perspective). Even when the facts you use are (probably) objectively correct (e.g., rate of inflation decreasing), it's a metric most people (correctly) don't care about because it's not as relevant to their lives as an absolute increase in prices. You can't "well ackshually" your way to electoral dominance with a population that quite correctly understands that you have active disdain for them (well, not anymore).
Melk,
I'm not reading all that, but I think you'd agree that the average IQ or g or whatever you want to use as a proxy for intelligence of college graduates must have gone down (relatively speaking) over the last thirty years as college attendance has increased (this is, of course, assuming that levels of intelligence can actually be measured in ways that aren't racist or sexist or biased against other ways of knowing). I think you'd get more accurate results if you segmented for major or sex o
I think both of us would agree that I'm "smarter" than you, which is inclusive of a singular test based on somewhat kinda bullshit things.
Now, when we pull back and look at this at its face value. It doesn't actually mean (assuming the assumption is true) I'm "smarter" than you. There are a ton of things that I'm sure you're good at that I look at like a true autist (which I am). Kids in zip up socks prob being the first thing on my mind.
Anyway, the application of the general to the specific is a logical fallacy that is indicative of someone who doesn't think. (As all logical fallacies are.) I don't clown on Rich because it is obviously trivial and I don't think he positions himself in a sort of superior intellect. Melk is easy low hanging fruit. He's smart, but not nearly as smart as he thinks.
Many of these ideas are relatively complex and I can't propound any specific ideology, other than we need to help poor people but not the detriment of the greater good (whatever that means). Maybe we can forge a path forward where people care about important **** instead of esoteric shibboleths. (Acknowledgement emoken)
I ran out of popcorn two days ago, but I still keep coming back.
It is like looking at a car accident. I just can't look away.
The problem is that I have to drive past this wreck every morning, it hasn't been cleared and I have to look again!
I’m just genuinely impressed they are still going
That's fine. And probably the optimal play. I can't fault you for that. However, some of this stuff is covered already in the things you didn't read. This will be relevant in the point you make about crime later.
but I think you'd agree that the average IQ or g or whatever you want to use as a proxy for intelligence of college graduates must have gone down (relatively speaking) over the last thirty years as college attendance has increased (this is, of course, assuming that levels of intelligence can actually be measured in ways that aren't racist or sexist or biased against other ways of knowing). I think you'd get more accurate results if you segmented for major or sex or other such metrics, but I'd guess that may prove undesirable?
I'm sure it has gone down. I would agree that all of those things are confounding factors when trying to study this this issue. First of all efforts have been made by the people who research these things to correct for these factors, and even the correlation persists. Are these attempts at correction perfect? Probably not. While the average intelligence of college grads has gone down, I seriously doubt that the positive correlation between education and intelligence no longer exists.
Moreover, I'm not sure why we need to limit this to raw intelligence. I'd suspect cultivated intelligence also correlates with education. Education is basically lifting for the brain. If we abandoned young baby Einstein to be a feral child in the woods who is literally raised by wolves, I doubt he becomes the GOAT physicist.
I'm not really even sure where you're trying to go with this. Do you think the two aren't positively correlated?
Also, re: crime levels falling being an objective fact from a few hundred thousand words back:
First of all, the question in the survey was not with regard to crime falling. It asked if crime was at "all time highs". That's essentially indisputable, regardless of what stats you use. I even showed this with the source the Rich Muny posted himself. So whether the responder thought crime had risen or fallen in the last several years is not really relevant to the question. And if they misunderstood the question, then that's kind of dumb.
This was covered in the text walls that you no doubt did not read. Again, I can't really fault you for that. I wouldn't read it if I weren't writing half of the posts. But it did happen.
Anyway, I'll address the rest anyway. But realize that despite the fact that Muny wanted to discuss it a lot (and I chose to respond to that) it wasn't actually what the survey asked.
The thing you've repeatedly failed to grasp is that people (in general) don't trust your "facts" when they conflict with their lived experience,
Nope. I absolutely understand that. Also as you may be aware, the reporting changed starting in approximately 2021 and some localities were still in the process of phasing that in during 2022 and 2023. I do agree that there is data that you could slice and dice to convince yourself that violent crime is up. I think that some of that data isn't convincing for reasons I explained in earlier text walls. However, the question wasn't "has crime gone down?"
and the left's credibility is beyond abysmal;
True. But it's not like the right has a ton of credibility either. They're both terrible in that dept.
arguing from a position of intellectual superiority and arrogance may feel great, but as others have noted, beyond the fact that it may not even be true,
Again, this wasn't the question asked.
it's terrible strategy even if it is true (which I think it probably is wrt average IQ of left vs right voters, albeit not in a way that's significant from a practical perspective).
This was also probably covered in the stuff you didn't read. It depends on what you mean by "terrible strategy". Would it be a terrible strategy by the Harris campaign? Yes, and I'm sure I have said that at least 5 times. Would it be a terrible strategy if I was actually trying to persuade someone of anything. Also yes. On the other hand, as I already said, when posting on a dying subforum of a dying poker forum, with someone with like Muny, strategic considerations are not relevant. What I'm posting doesn't matter at all. I'm certainly not trying to persuade Rich Muny. As I told you, I always knew he was not persuadable. My motivations were not to persuade (as I explained in my last post to you).
Even when the facts you use are (probably) objectively correct (e.g., rate of inflation decreasing), it's a metric most people (correctly) don't care about because it's not as relevant to their lives as an absolute increase in prices.
Agreed. However, just because someone doesn't care about a fact, doesn't mean that they don't know that fact. It still means that they don't know it and are thus less informed about it. As I said earlier, a smarter person could easily do what you're doing here. "Well inflation may technically be down in 2024, but I don't GAF because prices are still too damn high. I'm voting Trump. #MAGA". Such a person would still correctly answer that question.
You can't "well ackshually" your way to electoral dominance with a population that quite correctly understands that you have active disdain for them (well, not anymore).
Again, I said many, many times in those text walls that I agree that this is a bad strategy. On the other hand, it seems to work well for conservatives. They also have active disdain for liberals and you have to have Rich Muny levels of denial to think they don't. Is it a different flavor of disdain? Perhaps, but it is disdain nevertheless. As I've explained, harnessing the power of disdain works much better in one direction.
OK, LOL.
They are Trump talking points of how things were while he was president, not of how things are during Biden's time in office. Wow, you can't even be serious with this one.
Man, you're really dense. Trump always talks about the stock market. Like constantly. Earlier this year he claimed credit for gains claiming that it was just in anticipation of his election (and if it was down he would have blamed it on Biden). As something that is constantly brought up by Trump, you would think that Trump slappies would know what is going on with it.
Similarly on crime, I'm sure I can find you a reference of Trump saying during this campaign that crime is currently "at levels never seen before". If you need a link, let me know. That's his talking point. Crime is worse than ever. In this case, the Trump slappies believed his misinformation and thought that to be a fact. It is not. Violent crime is not at or near "all time highs" as the question asked. That is false.
Haha. With PPA, we worked with plenty of polling companies. It's all about what questions are asked. I already showed how the questions aligned with Kamala's talking points.
No you didn't. Read above.
I already showed you where some of the biases there lie. Too bad you lack critical thinking skills. That's why you believe everything you read.
Nah, you cooked up some conspiracy about how the Kamala-friendly polling company was trying mislead Trump voters. What purpose would that even serve.
15%? Haha. That's pretty trivial.
I guess we're not even trying now. Yeah, 15% of 1000 respondents said that they don't really follow the news. Let's just ignore that! Would also love to see your analysis on the bias in that one. The entire survey is linked in the source. Can't wait! This is going to be entertaining AF.
Dumb reply. "You all" means a group where a majority believes something. Kamala voters generally believe what I post. I saw it on social media constantly and heard it on MSNBC whenever I suffered through a bit of watching the propaganda network.
That cool and all and maybe in some different context we could squint really hard and accept your definition. Unfortunately, when you're having a dialogue more or less with one person (which is what this AIDSfest as, as no one else really gives a ****), "you all" includes that person. I can't even believe you're going to die on this hill.
No, you didn't show Trump voters are less informed. Not at all. Nor did you show Kamala voters are smarter. You tried to tie some weakly correlated factoids together, but it doesn't prove anything.
Yeah, we have several bits of data that suggest one thing. No data that supports the opposite. I wonder which is more likely to be true. It's truly a mystery.
Or as I said earlier
"So what we're left with is "you failed to prove your case". That's all you have left. Sure, you can always claim that. Let's see what what we've got
-A poll with some facts. People who didn't know those facts tended to vote Trump (yes I know you have problems with this, and I take issue with those problems).
-It sounds like even you agree that people who are less educated, tend to vote Trump
-People who are less educated tend to be less intelligent (I posted a link to a study from a peer-reviewed journal that shows this, but you don't seem convinced...something about liberal arts degrees)
-I recently posted some data showing that voters who said they didn't really follow the news tended to vote Trump.
What do we not have? Data to the contrary. I know you didn't claim have any. You'll be happy to know that I've looked a bit. I haven't found any either. Nothing from Fox News or Newsmax or OAN or whatever.
So, sure, I could find you more data like in the list above, and I'm sure you would just dismiss that as well. Doesn't matter what the evidence is. Your mind is clearly made up. But a reasonable person would have to admit that all of the above in the aggregate would make the proposition that "dumber/less intelligent/less informed voters tend to vote Trump" more likely to be true than not true. All the data (imperfect though it may be) is only pointing one way, but if there is one thing Rich Muny is sure of, it's that it can't be true."
That's just a lot of copium, Melk. You haven't shown Kamala voters to be more intelligent or better informed than anyone. I've shown that a bunch of them aren't very smart, as it didn't occur to them that going around acting superior -- with no justification BTW -- would harm them in the election. But, as I said, I hope purple haired gender studies majors will keep telling mechanics and owners of plumbing businesses how how dumb they think they are.
That's just a lot of copium, Melk. You haven't shown Kamala voters to be more intelligent or better informed than anyone.
We've been through this already.
Let's see what what we've got
-A poll with some facts. People who didn't know those facts tended to vote Trump (yes I know you have problems with this, and I take issue with those problems).
-It sounds like even you agree that people who are less educated, tend to vote Trump
-People who are less educated tend to be less intelligent (I posted a link to a study from a peer-reviewed journal that shows this, but you don't seem convinced...something about liberal arts degrees)
-I recently posted some data showing that voters who said they didn't really follow the news tended to vote Trump.
What do we not have? Data to the contrary. I know you didn't claim have any. You'll be happy to know that I've looked a bit. I haven't found any either. Nothing from Fox News or Newsmax or OAN or whatever....
a reasonable person would have to admit that all of the above in the aggregate would make the proposition that "dumber/less intelligent/less informed voters tend to vote Trump" more likely to be true than not true. All the data (imperfect though it may be) is only pointing one way, but if there is one thing Rich Muny is sure of, it's that it can't be true.
I've shown that a bunch of them aren't very smart, as it didn't occur to them that going around acting superior -- with no justification BTW -- would harm them in the election.
Shown? That word is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I love it. I post some actual sourced facts and Rich Muny comes up with the the most loltastic responses.
"Those facts are biased. Harris voters would know those" (that's kind of the point, they know reality)
"Harris voters may be more educated. Doesn't mean they're smarter" (based on what, I'm not sure. Something about liberal arts degrees)
"People who didn't follow the news, tended to vote Trump? Only 15%? Who cares" (I don't even get this one)
You, on the other, hand have shown almost no data on anything. Certainly not on this claim. Is it true? Possibly. Did you show or prove it? Based on the standards you apply to me, clearly not.
Did you link to any data showing this? Nope! It's one of the many things that you've just decided is true based on thinking about it. When you think something is true, things like sources and data aren't really necessary. That's the stuff of research papers. It's certainly not the kind of thing that a self-described "dealer in facts" would be interested in!
So tell, me how exactly did you prove that? Remember you've go to hold yourself to the same ridiculous standards that you place on all the other information that doesn't conform to your world view. Good luck with that!
probably no one will see this in amongst all this high end political strategy but....a fitness question
I'm getting soreness on the inside of my elbows on pull day. it's a sharp, hot, shooting pain that is mainly on the inside point of the elbow but does run up and down away from the elbow joint a little too.
it started from doing too many pull ups but I'm now getting a sharp pain on the inside of both elbows when I do pretty much any back exercise and also on biceps. it's still sharpest on pull ups, which i've stopped and it's manageable on the other exercises, but still very much there
other than total rest, has anyone followed other courses of action to reduce/get rid of a similar pain
Thremp,
👍
feels,
probably no one will see this in amongst all this high end political strategy but....a fitness question
I'm getting soreness on the inside of my elbows on pull day. it's a sharp, hot, shooting pain that is mainly on the inside point of the elbow but does run up and down away from the elbow joint a little too.
it started from doing too many pull ups but I'm now getting a sharp pain on the inside of both elbows when I do pretty much any back exercise and also on biceps. it's still sharpest on pull
If memory serves, Evo has dealt with elbow tenderness (and proximal bicep tendinitis) a fair bit over the last few years and would likely be a good resource here. No issues for me, though I switched to NG pullups exclusively many years ago, which seem to work best for me (though my pull-up volume is much decreased from my ladder days).
Happy Turkey Day, S&F!
He talks about it when he can show he had some effect. Anyway, the questions are clearly biased toward Kamala voters answering correctly. I showed that already. And LOL at your believing finding a legacy media source that shares your opinion is "research". Your posts do seem like middle school research papers, though. The rest of us are sharing our opinions.
Anyway, to wrap this up, you've not shown that Kamala voters are any better informed. Again, many of them believe Project 2025 is Trump's agenda, Trump killed the so-called "bipartisan border bill" to help his reelection bid (MSNBC lied and implied that Trump actually said that, when it's a Chuck Schumer quote), and on and on. Asking random true/false questions where one party is far likelier to answer true than the other is the very definition of biased polling. And, of course, if you were all so well informed, you wouldn't have lost the trifecta.
So, to summarize, we can say men with college degrees were equally likely to vote for Trump as for Kamala (1% is within the margin of error), men without college degrees were more likely to vote for Trump, and women in general were more likely to support Kamala.
The hypothesis that Kamala voters are smarter and/or more informed than Trump voters has not been proven. But, other group differences have been, like
. More women voted for Harris and more men voted for Trump. So, while one can't say voting for Kamala shows they are more intelligent, they can show it proves they're more feminine (should they wish to make such a case). So, there's that.
Rather than arguing about intelligence, Melk could have simply made claims about education level as it pertained to Trump and Harris support (he referenced it, but only to try to correlate that to intelligence, which was odd). BUT....college educated men voted for Kamala and Trump roughly equally. Woman (college educated and non-college educated) favored Harris, again showing the stronger gender divide.
He talks about it when he can show he had some effect. Anyway, the questions are clearly biased toward Kamala voters answering correctly. I showed that already. And LOL at your believing finding a legacy media source that shares your opinion is "research". Your posts do seem like middle school research papers, though. The rest of us are sharing our opinions.
That's exactly correct. Knowing facts does indeed seem makes someone more likely to vote Harris. Also correct that your "showing" is just you sharing your "opinions". And yes, the typical middle school student is probably infinitely more adept at looking up facts than you are.
I think you're actually getting this.
Anyway, to wrap this up, you've not shown that Kamala voters are any better informed. Again, many of them believe Project 2025 is Trump's agenda, Trump killed the so-called "bipartisan border bill" to help his reelection bid (MSNBC lied and implied that Trump actually said that, when it's a Chuck Schumer quote), and on and on.
See these things are not really the same kind of black and white fact. Stock market is up = undeniable fact. Did Trump encourage his allies to kill a bill or is Trump actually going to do X? Those aren't things you can prove in the same way. I realize that this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, so you're going to have to trust me. Also good use of "them" here.
Asking random true/false questions where one party is far likelier to answer true than the other is the very definition of biased polling..
Says you. It also could mean that those people have a better grasp of the facts. When you couple with those people being generally more educated and intelligent. It makes that more likely. When people who tell you they are voluntarily less informed and those people vote for Trump, then it is more likely still.
And, of course, if you were all so well informed, you wouldn't have lost the trifecta.
There it is with the "you" again. One day you'll have to learn what that means. I already said I wasn't a Democrat.
So, to summarize, we can say men with college degrees were equally likely to vote for Trump as for Kamala (1% is within the margin of error), men without college degrees were more likely to vote for Trump, and women in general were more likely to support Kamala.
WTF man, are you not even reading this thread? Mindflayer posted this data like 10 pages ago. We already did this. I am not disputing that data. I suggested that sexism had something to do with the results and then you claimed that Trump isn't actually sexist, which I'm sure in your mind qualifies as a fact.
That's exactly correct. Knowing facts does indeed seem makes someone more likely to vote Harris. Also correct that your "showing" is just you sharing your "opinions". And yes, the typical middle school student is probably infinitely more adept at looking up facts than you are.
I think you're actually getting this.
You lack crucial thinking skills and accept lots of dubious stuff as fact, just because someone posted it on a website. That was on full display in that vegan thread from hell. I'm trying to explain to you the issues with the data you shared. You are incapable of understanding basic logic.
See these things are not really the same kind of black and white fact. Stock market is up = undeniable fact. Did Trump encourage his allies to kill a bill or is Trump actually going to do X? Those aren't things you can prove in the same way. I realize that this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, so you're going to have to trust me. Also good use of "them" here.
Trump opposed the bill because it was a bad bill. It was DOA in the House, which is why Trump could "kill" it by simply saying it was a bad bill. The lie (LOL at MSNBC now being part of SpinCo...perfect name) was that Trump killed it because he was afraid the bill would help Biden and Harris. LOL at you all believing that. (And, yeah, "you all" means Kamala supporters in general, not every single one of you. Cry harder though.)
WTF man, are you not even reading this thread? Mindflayer posted this data like 10 pages ago. We already did this. I am not disputing that data. I suggested that sexism had something to do with the results and then you claimed that Trump isn't actually sexist, which I'm sure in your mind qualifies as a fact.
I read it and I agreed with it. I opined further, since you seem confused. I guess you weren't paying attention.
You seem confused about sexism too, feeling it can only be anti-woman and not anti-man. There was a gender bias on both sides. Kamala said people should vote for her because she's a woman. So did her supporters. Trump never said people should vote for him because he's a man. Which is more sexist? (I explained this to you already, but you were again confused).
Kamala got more votes from women because her campaign specifically appealed to the interests of women. LOL at (anti-woman) "sexism" as the cause of the gender disparity or of her loss.
Thremp,
👍
feels,
If memory serves, Evo has dealt with elbow tenderness (and proximal bicep tendinitis) a fair bit over the last few years and would likely be a good resource here. No issues for me, though I switched to NG pullups exclusively many years ago, which seem to work best for me (though my pull-up volume is much decreased from my ladder days).
Happy Turkey Day, S&F!
Ty
I find chins better for the elbows than normal pull ups but we don’t have the ability to do neutral grip at my gym.
You lack crucial thinking skills and accept lots of dubious stuff as fact, just because someone posted it on a website.
LOL "just because someone posted it on a website". That's what you're doing, my man. You just post random musings. Literally the only thing you posted a source for proved my point.
Only one of us actually seems to use facts. You just dismiss facts you don't like with, as you put it, "thinking skills". My favorite was "lol 15% isn't enough people".
That was on full display in that vegan thread from hell.
Ah I remember that. Rich Muny says humans should just act like bears. We're the same, really. Chef's Kiss. Vintage Rich Muny
I'm trying to explain to you the issues with the data you shared. You are incapable of understanding basic logic.
Nah, man. My logic is fine. The problem is not that I'm accepting facts. I'm not accepting your attempts at hand waving them away with your "critical thinking" as you put it. If these facts are false, why not find other facts to disprove them? We both know why.
Trump opposed the bill because it was a bad bill. It was DOA in the House, which is why Trump could "kill" it by simply saying it was a bad bill. The lie (LOL at MSNBC now being part of SpinCo...perfect name) was that Trump killed it because he was afraid the bill would help Biden and Harris. LOL at you all believing that. (And, yeah, "you all" means Kamala supporters in general, not every single one of you. Cry harder though.)
I'm not a "Kamala supporter". I thought she was bad candidate. Reading is really tough for you. I voted for her. As I said I would vote for you over Trump. Anyone who would use that to call me a "Rich Muny supporter" would be way off the mark. It's clear that your command of the English language is quite tenuous, so you're just going to have to take my word on that.
With respect to Trump, as I said earlier, I can show you plenty of news reports saying that Trump killed the bill. I also linked to a report more or less saying Trump told republicans not to do anything on immigration because it would help Harris. You're going to say they're all b.s.. "Killed the bill" is such a subjective evaluation that it's not going anywhere. Once I realize that we're weren't on the same plane of reality as far as that is concerned there is no point in continuing it.
This is different from Stock market is up, Crime is not at all time highs, inflation is down. Those are indisputable.
I read it and I agreed with it. I opined further, since you seem confused. I guess you weren't paying attention.
You seem confused about sexism too, feeling it can only be anti-woman and not anti-man. There was a gender bias on both sides. Kamala said people should vote for her because she's a woman. So did her supporters. Trump never said people should vote for him because he's a man. Which is more sexist? (I explained this to you already, but you were again confused).
Nah, I ignored it because it was the dumbest argument in the history of the universe. Mindflayer cited a source showing that sexism (against women) is real, systemic, and exists. Men don't have to say "vote for me because I'm a man". Do you know why? The answer is sexism.
The idea that Trump is somehow less sexist that Harris and actually benefits less from sexism than Harris is so idiotic that only a completely Trump-pilled (as Soulman correctly put it) person would believe it, let alone actually argue it. But sure, man, find me some facts (like Mindflayer posted) that actually show the existence of pervasive sexist attitudes against men. And by facts I don't mean "typing out random things that I think are facts", I mean actual sourced info. I'll wait. I'm sure it will be a long facking time, because you're the "dealer in facts" that doesn't actually know how to post facts.
LOL "just because someone posted it on a website". That's what you're doing, my man. You just post random musings. Literally the only thing you posted a source for proved my point.
Only one of us actually seems to use facts. You just dismiss facts you don't like with, as you put it, "thinking skills".
This is a forum. We discuss our opinions here. You didn't know that?
Also, LOL at you believing that finding a poorly written article or a biased poll is confirmation of your opinions.
My favorite was "lol 15% isn't enough people".
You thought more than 85% of Americans follow the news very closely? Do you ever get out?
Ah I remember that. Rich Muny says humans should just act like bears. We're the same, really.
We're omnivores, like bears. We should either act like it or expect to function very suboptimally.
I'm not a "Kamala supporter".
I voted for her.
If you voted for Kamala, then you're a Kamala supporter. It's that simple. Stop lying to yourself.
I didn't think we should have invaded Iraq, so I didn't vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004. I didn't vote for John Kerry because -- wait for it -- I didn't support John Kerry. My options were to vote third party or not at all. See how that works?
With respect to Trump, as I said earlier, I can show you plenty of news reports saying that Trump killed the bill. I also linked to a report more or less saying Trump told republicans not to do anything on immigration because it would help Harris. You're going to say they're all b.s.. "Killed the bill" is such a subjective evaluation that it's not going anywhere. Once I realize that we're weren't on the same plane of reality as far as that is concerned there is no point in continuing it.
Killing something that is borderline dead? Many people killed it. But, as always, you missed the point. I already said Trump opposed that crappy bill, and correctly so. We're talking about MSNBC lying by claiming Trump opposed it because he didn't want Biden to get credit. See how objective that is when you actually pay attention? Too bad you're here only to argue.
Nah, I ignored it because it was the dumbest argument in the history of the universe. Mindflayer cited a source showing that sexism (against women) is real, systemic, and exists. Men don't have to say "vote for me because I'm a man". Do you know why? The answer is sexism.
You keep believing any opinion piece that makes it to the internet is a "fact". Yeah, there are more women voters than male voters, and we've had a woman as presidential or VP nominee of one of the two major parties in four of the last five elections. LOL though.
Nah, man. My logic is fine. The problem is not that I'm accepting facts. I'm not accepting your attempts at hand waving them away with your "critical thinking" as you put it. If these facts are false, why not find other facts to disprove them? We both know why.
These aren't "facts". Since you lack critical thinking skills, I'll go step by step:
- 1. A Trump supporter might point out the fact that Joe and Kamala opened the borders and allowed millions to enter our nation. A Kamala supporter might say they finally reinstated some of Trump's EOs and brought the rate down in time for the election (though the illegals are still here). Which "fact" was in the survey? Oh yeah, the pro-Kamala one. Same for the other three questions.
- 2. Someone who doesn't follow the news a lot but who watches a little MSNBC would be far more exposed to the pro-Kamala talking point than someone similar who watches a little Fox News or Newsmax. The Fox News / Newsmax viewers would be equally exposed to information, but they'd learn more about total illegal immigration during Biden-Kamala. And, since it's true/false, one merely had to have an opinion to answer. No one was asked if they knew the actual numbers.
- 3. Finally, truly low information Kamala voters would be more likely to answer "true" to pro-Kamala talking points, as people who think things are going well were far more likely to vote for Kamala.
I hope this explanation will help to school you on critical thinking.
As a random aside, Joey Boden preceded over one of the largest inflationary periods of any American president (modern). While there may be some debate on supply side inflation (which is allegedly transient, which is also ******ed), we seem to have a general consensus that tarriffs are inflationary.
So how much was inflation exacerbated by his continuation of Trump tariffs and expansion?
Anyways I didn't vote Trump, I couldn't. Too facking dumb, dictator like, and unscrupulous. Elon and Bill Ackman would say that i was brain washed by the media. No man, i have seen most of the speeches (they are batshiet crazy). All the insiders in his past adminstration loling at him. WTF, its like i am watching a comedy film, this cant be real life.
I have zero qualms with you guys voting Trump, I understand. Kamala is a donk also, 8 million immigrant encounters while she was explo
This is the take that seems the most reasonable to me.
There is a difference between a potentially non-ideal candidate (Hillary, Biden, Kamala) and what Trump is. Tbh, I feel exactly how I did about him when the republicans chose him as their candidate 8+ years ago or whatever. Things have gone in some ways worse than I would have guessed, and in some ways better. The country hasn't gone to complete ****, but OTOH, *both* parties have gotten worse imho. And it's increasingly difficult to even figure out wtf either actually represent. The waters are just so damn muddy:
Will the economy be better with R or D? I'm not very confident answering either way. EXCEPT, prominent democrats responsible for understanding Bitcoin (well, crypto on a fundamental level), don't. Do republican leaders understand it? I'm not sure but their basic platform makes much more sense for it.
Will marginalized communities do better under R or D? I still think D but I am much less confident than 8 years ago. The democratic party at least seems to have to own up to inhumane stuff whereas, with Trump as president, literally no one has to own up to treating anyone in any reasonable way - b/c he treats everyone like ****. Muny, Melk, me, loco, everyone is **** to him.
Identity stuff - this will sort itself out eventually in favor of letting people be who they want. It's just too much change too quickly. Massive amounts of people still are super uncomfortable and/or think gay people in general are literally pedophiles.
My life - well, it's very hard to sort through exactly how policies Trump and Biden were responsible for affected my life. First, I try to not follow the news b/c it's a dumpster fire. Second, even if I did, lol at any outlet (R biased or D biased) giving me enough information to feel confident that I actually understand the ramifications properly. If I had to bet with such massive uncertainty, I actually think I directly benefit/will benefit more from Trump. Still massively against that asshat. He certainly didn't try to make *my* life better, any of it is just completely random and/or b/c I'm super privileged.
I had to give up on the Muny/Melk debate although I followed somewhat closely at first. There is too much talking past each other (surprise, surprise). No offence but neither come out of it looking great. I sympathize with Melk more but half the time have no idea wtf he is actually trying to say with each infinite response.
My best guess as to how Trump won has to do with the people who get behind him *feeling* better about things while the people getting behind Kamala still *feel* like **** to some degree. Also, she ran too late, didn't even go through caucus, went hard at Trump (which I think was fine) without establishing herself first as a superior leader/human being. Anyway, I didn't even bother trying to figure out how good or bad she really is (same with Biden), it wasn't really necessary, almost anyone would be so far ahead of Trump for what I value in someone leading anything I'm a part of.
Ok, somehow feels better to rant.
Nah, I ignored it because it was the dumbest argument in the history of the universe. Mindflayer cited a source showing that sexism (against women) is real, systemic, and exists. Men don't have to say "vote for me because I'm a man". Do you know why? The answer is sexism.
Please note that the source said that 82% of women were biased against women and 90% of men were biased against women. (preferred to have a man/woman leading in the jobs described.)
If the poll reported on women only, would they say that 82% of women are sexist?
There is also another study that I was looking up because the underlying assumption that college educated = more intelligent seems to be no longer true!!?
Is this possible?!?
Well back in 1930's only 10% of the population had university degrees. The term University applies to any school that offers PhD and Md. degrees. Colleges offer BA and some Master's degrees but not higher.
In 1930 the average IQ of the university degree holder was 119.
Today in the 2020's 39% of the population have college degrees or higher, and as I said before that is not necessarily the top 39% of IQ attending college. Many women are there to get a Mrs. degree.
Today the average IQ of a college degree holder is a whopping 102!
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/20...
“College students once stood out from the pack on IQ tests. Today, they're about average. A recent meta-analysis found that undergraduates' IQs have steadily fallen from roughly 119 in 1939 to a mean of 102 in 2022, just slightly above the population average of 100.”
Now taking into account that stem degrees (more men than women take stem degrees) take higher IQ's to get into... where does that leave women talking liberal arts degrees on the IQ scale?
You have to go back and ask anyone taking that liberal arts degree, what is the purpose of your degree? Do you earn more over the next 20 years by getting the degree?
Were you there to party for 4 years and scope out potential husbands?
Not saying the IQ stuff is true. Just more to think about.
Got a new bowl of popcorn... chomp chomp.
This is a forum. We discuss our opinions here. You didn't know that?
Also, LOL at you believing that finding a poorly written article or a biased poll is confirmation of your opinions.
I have provided several pieces of evidence. They all point one way. Have you found any articles, poorly written or otherwise that even suggest the opposite. Nope!
You thought more than 85% of Americans follow the news very closely? Do you ever get out?
Of course that's not what the poll said. You really can't read, can you?
We're omnivores, like bears. We should either act like it or expect to function very suboptimally.
Yup, bears are just like us. They have the ability to contemplate ethical decisions and have access to modern agriculture techniques and food production. Fantastic stuff.
If you voted for Kamala, then you're a Kamala supporter. It's that simple. Stop lying to yourself.
If you vote for a punch in the face instead of a kick in the balls, I guess you're a punch in the face supporter.
I didn't think we should have invaded Iraq, so I didn't vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004. I didn't vote for John Kerry because -- wait for it -- I didn't support John Kerry. My options were to vote third party or not at all. See how that works?
Cool story bro.
Killing something that is borderline dead? Many people killed it. But, as always, you missed the point. I already said Trump opposed that crappy bill, and correctly so. We're talking about MSNBC lying by claiming Trump opposed it because he didn't want Biden to get credit. See how objective that is when you actually pay attention? Too bad you're here only to argue.
You really need to learn what words mean. Who the fack is going to know the motivations running through Orange Man's brain?
I found you some Republicans saying that was part of the motivation. You don't believe them, because of of course you don't. You only selectively believe the stuff you want to believe.
You keep believing any opinion piece that makes it to the internet is a "fact". Yeah, there are more women voters than male voters, and we've had a woman as presidential or VP nominee of one of the two major parties in four of the last five elections. LOL though.
Now we don't know what an "opinion piece" is? Man, this is bad.
These aren't "facts". Since you lack critical thinking skills, I'll go step by step:
[*]A Trump supporter might point out the fact that Joe and Kamala opened the borders and allowed millions to enter our nation. A Kamala supporter might say they finally reinstated some of Trump's EOs and brought the rate down in time for the election (though the illegals are still here). Which "fact" was in the survey? Oh yeah, the pro-Kamala one. Same for the other three questions.
Ok, now do that with "Stock Market is up".
Like I said, facts are facts. This seems to really escape you. You seem to be very interested in why these Trump slappies didn't know facts. That doesn't matter. What matters is they didn't know them.
Anyway, if this is the case where is the survey that shows people when presented with Trumpy facts get the questions wrong and vote for Kamala. Why doesn't that exist? Same questions that show less educated people tend to vote Trump. Why doesn't that exist? What about data that shows that people who claim they don't follow the news closely tend to vote for Trump. Why does the opposite of that not exist? You never seem to answer these questions other that "I don't know". Maybe pause to think about it for a while and it will come to you. If all the data is pointing one way, it should tell you something. Well, it would tell a rational person something.
I know, I know. You're saying that these facts don't mean that these Trump slappies are less informed in general. Did you provide any data that showed Trump slappies were more informed about anything? No. Because finding facts is for middle school students, not "dealers in facts", like Rich Muny.
[*]Finally, truly low information Kamala voters would be more likely to answer "true" to pro-Kamala talking points, as people who think things are going well were far more likely to vote for Kamala.
Man, I don't know what you think this proves. If someone's subjective evaluation of the nation's economy was that it was doing well and that they were doing better today than four years ago, that means they're "low info". Come on, man, even you're not stupid enough to realize those are general subjective evaluations and not the same as "stock market is up", " Inflation is down", ect.
Please note that the source said that 82% of women were biased against women and 90% of men were biased against women. (preferred to have a man/woman leading in the jobs described.)
If the poll reported on women only, would they say that 82% of women are sexist?
Many women certainly have negative attitudes towards women in leadership. I'm not sure about the exact numbers, because of the nature of the questions asked. I don't doubt that it is high. Internalized sexism is a thing. College educated women seem to be likely to have these attitudes than less educated women.
