2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Sometimes the complexity of the world overwhelms people and they long for a time when everything was much simpler. It's natural to reactively and aggressively fight against the demands of the modern world. This is a central thrust behind the nationlist movement around the world.
there is no denial of complexity rather a denial of any kind of mandate to help every human being in existence.
we just deny there is a moral mandate to internalize the utility function of every human being in existence. it's folly, it's absurd, it doesn't make any sense outside leftist morality.
I am not asking third world countries anything and right-wing people aren't either so your answer is nonsense.
you guys are asking them stuff (which they completely disregard, and they make up fake numbers when they are needed to keep getting your cash) but not us at all.
I could care less about how much India or china emits in CO2
Since you are caring only about northen Italy (which is weird considering the amount of time you spend commenting on USA politics), I'm wondering where you get your oil from, food, etc...
You make it sounds like you don;t need anyone.
lol I never rejected his “science” I told you he’s not a scientist and why I think his model is flawed. I also pointed out that he completely disagrees with your assessment of his own models! It’s like you just have this yap you want to go on and will just insert it even when it has nothing to do with what’s being talked about. For a right winger you sure are emotional.
Secondly, I reiterate, for decades and decades your lot didn’t just ignore science but calle
an economist is better equipped scientifically to assess tradeoffs about ANY human activity for society than a climate scientist.
it's not about how wrong epidemiologists are or were, it's about you shouldn't even think of asking them about what to do given the epidemy, they can only supply models with what happens depending on what you do and they have no skill or tool to choose among them. After they tell you "I think that if you implement NPI x cases will go down by Y" they are worthless for society in any subsequent assessment.
they are the worst people in society to decide if lowering cases by Y is worth the costs. because they want to prove their model so they want the NPI implemented , there is no one more biased than them in tradeoff assessment.
same for climate scientists.
I don't hold you responsabile for the bullcrap climate activits are pulling these days like claims the sea will raise meters soon if we don't get to net 0 immediately, so stop now mixing me with people who denied the climate is warming because of human actions.
90% of the media is skewed horribly to the far left on this topic (AP in particular). it's not just about claiming the world is 1/1.2 cleaius warmer than the 1850-1900 average which is settled science. it's everything else.
they should be telling us 24/7 that most activists are claiming bullshit. IPCC sees sea levels raised by 50cm on avg under RCP 4.5 in 2100.
everyone claiming more should be attacked WITH THE SAME STRENGTH they attack denialists if the media was BALANCED AND SCIENTIFIC, ie centrist.
someone claiming the sea will rise 2 meters by 2070 is a lot worse than someone completely denying climate warming ok? objectively, in centimeters vs scientifical predictions.
every paper which uses RCP 8.5 is bad faith apocalyptic masturbation as we already aren't under 8.5 . the media should tell that every single time they cite any paper which keeps using 8.5 (which is complete bad faith, utter crap, partisan non sense, worse than denialism).
Greta should be depicted as a psychopath which constantly makes deranged antiscientific claims which has a cult following by people who lost their minds and that's a huge problem for society. if the media was centrist.
and so on.
and you know that
not criticizing Greta (and everyone who doesn't treat her like the utter joke she is) as a fraud, a sham, is already being to the very far left of the discourse on the topic
there is no denial of complexity rather a denial of any kind of mandate to help every human being in existence.
we just deny there is a moral mandate to internalize the utility function of every human being in existence. it's folly, it's absurd, it doesn't make any sense outside leftist morality.
You don't have to explain conservatism's implicit absence of compassion to the forum - it's already a well-understood precept of the ideology.
But your thesis is wrong irrespective of that ideology because pollution and climate change affects first-world nations as well, so it's not about helping others in distant lands.
Since you are caring only about northen Italy (which is weird considering the amount of time you spend commenting on USA politics), I'm wondering where you get your oil from, food, etc...
You make it sounds like you don;t need anyone.
I care about northern Italy for the topic of the climate.
My dad lives in the USA but you have no history, no roots, and he doesn't have any there as well, you just move if things go bad. there is nothing geographical to preserve or with enough history to justify caring in the USA.
my region is a huge food exporter (Emilia Romagna) so I am not sure about your mentioning of food.
I care about oil and other imports yes, and? a warmer Europe as mentioned will mean less need for fossil fuels to heat in winter, it's a big part of why warming is a blessing for my area.
not sure if you followed but in the 22-23 winter we were risking a disaster after the Ukraine war with Nat gas reserves risking full depletion before end of winter before we managed to get supplies from non-russian sources in size.
luckily we got a very warm unusual winter, thanks to global warming, which was an unadulterated blessing and by itself fully makes global warming a monstrous positive for the area I live in and I intend to preserve for posterity because it has actual history worth preserving.
You don't have to explain conservatism's implicit absence of compassion to the forum - it's already a well-understood precept of the ideology.
But your thesis is wrong irrespective of that ideology because pollution and climate change affects first-world nations as well, so it's not about helping others in distant lands.
climate change affects Europe *positively*, Canada as well. and not by small amounts, it's a huge boon, kind of a miracle.
they are making decent wine in Germany (!!!!). our beaches are usable in may which they never were in the north.
fog almost disappeared in the pianura padana.
far less expense for heating which was always the worst utility bill around here.
plenty of celsius yet to reach full year around of beaches being decent.
climate change affects Europe *positively*, Canada as well. and not by small amounts, it's a huge boon, kind of a miracle.
they are making decent wine in Germany (!!!!). our beaches are usable in may which they never were in the north.
fog almost disappeared in the pianura padana.
far less expense for heating which was always the worst utility bill around here.
plenty of celsius yet to reach full year around of beaches being decent.
Are you ever gonna mention drought?
Like the one in your very region?
i am not going to mention climatic events that have no relationship with a one Celsius warming no, because they are fully orthogonal to that.
the "science" about the claim that everything bad that can happen climatically gets worse with one more Celsius isn't settled at all, it's very controversial, I know it's the latest scare technique used to convince people who weren't scared by warming, weren't scared by change, and that you guys hope to scare with "crisis" and the utter bullshit claim that the frequency and intensity of everything bad increases.
but it's pure non sense without any logical or scientifical basis, with the exception of course of heat waves that do increase with warming, and cold spells (that kill a lot more in Europe) which do decrease in intensity and frequency, for a net outcome which saves a lot of European lives.
btw right now we have excess water not a drought.
I am pretty sure that can be blamed to one Celsius warmer than 150 years ago as well by some kid paid by a leftist government to "research" in some basement
i am not going to mention climatic events that have no relationship with a one Celsius warming no, because they are fully orthogonal to that.
the "science" about the claim that everything bad that can happen climatically gets worse with one more Celsius isn't settled at all, it's very controversial, I know it's the latest scare technique used to convince people who weren't scared by warming, weren't scared by change, and that you guys hope to scare with "crisis" and the utter bullshit claim that
This post was going ok until the last sentence where you couldn't just resist it.
Your ability to undermine every one of your posts with one out of the place sentence is admirable.
an economist is better equipped scientifically to assess tradeoffs about ANY human activity for society than a climate scientist.
it's not about how wrong epidemiologists are or were, it's about you shouldn't even think of asking them about what to do given the epidemy, they can only supply models with what happens depending on what you do and they have no skill or tool to choose among them. After they tell you "I think that if you implement NPI x cases will go down by Y" they are worthless for
You literally just did in the post I was quoting!
you keep changing the narrative to climate crisis or whatever, it doesn't change reality. a warmer Europe is a better Europe for residents, as it would have been obvious to everyone given that Europe is colder than the human optimal.
ye science that disagrees with your claims is crap, I get it. first it's "science is with me!!!!" then people cite science that actually is the literal opposite of your claims, and "that's not real science!!!!" and you wait for radical leftists publishing in radical journal and "that's real science!!!!"
I’m not going to respond to the nebulous claims about random activists being crazy or Greta being a sociopath (she’s probably just a midwit and autistic who was thrust into the limelight by activist parents, not a sociopath)
What I will say is that I don’t understand your morality at all, because while you rejected utility in the past, you seem to favor economic analysis which is almost exclusively about utility and not morality. You also seem ok if the rest of the world just thanos snaps out of existence as long as northern italy isn’t effected. I don’t think even the most coldhearted conservatives would agree with your morality, and in fact it might be far less contemptible to be mistaken on the facts than what you’re saying.
Also I’m very much concerned about insane claims of lefties, but I also think it’s a category error to compare it to what conservatives are doing. It’s much worse of an epistemological sin to say that climate change is a hoax, which would involve many parties to collude together at institutional levels that are for the most part independent of each other and very incentivized to be the person that breaks open everyone else’s theory, causing a paradigm shift, as well as countries who are in direct competition to each other saying we should all use less resources, etc. The incentives are to deny climate change, not to hoax it. That’s a much worse sin than misinterpreting climate models.
If we wanted to I’m sure we could find issues where I agree far lefties are guilty of that sin, but I don’t think saying 0 is closer to 50 than 300 is a particularly convincing argument, especially since the whole thing is based off isolating one variable.
The comments were made under the username
minisoldr, a moniker Robinson used frequently online.
“Mein Kampf is a good read,” the user, dubbed
“minisoldr,” wrote in a thread seeking book recommendations.
“It’s very informative and not at all what I thought it would be. It’s a real eye opener.”
Its been 10 days since the debate (and Taylor Swift's endorsement) and there have been significant changes in the polling for the most part. What the polling that 538.com is using has now reduced the Undecideds (Un) substantially. My guess is that the debate swayed a lot of undecided voters, including some RFK Jr supporters who won't be able to vote for him in most swing states). Un now includes all Multi-Candidates (MC) as well. For the most part both candidates increased voter %.
These are the swing states where Kamala gained ground since the debate:
AZ: Trump leads by 0.5% with 5.5% Un (Kamala +1.5%, Trump +1.3%)
MI: Kamala up by 2.7% with 5.5% Un (Kamala +1.9%, Trump +1.1%) Note that with RFK Jr on ballot there might be just 3% or less Undecided which would make it very hard for Trump to win...
NV: Kamala up by 0.7% with 6.1% Un (Kamala +1.6%, Trump +1.1%)
PA: Kamala up by 1.5% with 4.9% Un (Kamala +2%, Trump +1.1%)
These are the swing states where Kamala lost ground since the debate:
GA: Trump leads by 1% with 5% Un (Kamala +1.1%, Trump +1.5%)
NC: Trump now leads by 0.2% with 5.2% Un (Kamala +1.1%, Trump +1.5%)
WI: Kamala up by 1.8% with 5% Un (Kamala +0.9%, Trump +1.7%) Note that with RFK Jr on ballot there might be just 2.5% or less Undecided which could make this very close
These are now no longer swing states in my opinion but are still somewhat close and this is what has happened since the debate:
FL: Trump leads by 4.1% with 4.9% Un (Kamala +1.3%, Trump +1.2%) Trump would have to tank for Kamala to win as Trump is at 49.6%...
MN: Kamala up by 6.2% with 6.6% Un (Kamala +0.8%, Trump +1.7%) Note RFK Jr is on ballot and Kamala is at 49.8% (with Walz as her running mate)
NH: Kamala up by 7.5% with 4.9% Un (Kamala +1.2%, Trump +0.2%)
VA: Kamala up 7% by with 7.6% Un (Kamala is at 49.7%) VA was just added to 538.com's graph list so no comparison with prior stats but Nate Silver had significant gains for Kamala.
I looked at all Likely Voter (LV) polls, primarily considering MC polls over HU polls by the same pollsters, nationally and in MI, PA, and WI to see how Kamala fared during each phase so far:
Nationally Kamala gained 0.9% prior to Walz, was +2.1% after Walz announcement, +0.1% after DNC, and +0.2% since the debate. This surprised me because I thought Kamala lost some ground after the DNC and the RFK Jr thing. Just not nationally with LV it looks like.
In MI Kamala lost 0.3% prior to Walz, was +2.5% after Walz announcement, then lost 0.8% after DNC, and then went up +2.2% since the debate. So very volatile in MI
In PA Kamala gained 1.3% prior to Walz, lost 0.8% after Walz announcement which makes sense because some PA people must have resented not picking Shapiro especially Jews who are 3.3% of the PA population, Kamala lost 0.2% after DNC, and was +1.7% since the debate
In WI Kamala gained 1.6% prior to Walz, was +1.5% after Walz announcement, then lost 0.6% after DNC, and has lost 0.6% since the debate... I think that because WI has a very small % black and
Hispanic population that the undecideds may tilt more heavily towards Trump. It seems like its happening at a 2:1 margin which could make this the 3rd election in a row that will be within 0.5% either way.
One thing to note is that since the debate there have been 5 LV polls in PA and MI and 6 LV polls in WI. Overall there have been 33 LV polls in MI and WI and 40 in PA and 80 LV polls Nationally.
HOW TO WIN WOMEN VOTERS!!
Friedman wasn't an advocate for global pigouvian taxes , and no it's not obvious that a mechanism he advocated for domestically should generalize globally even if was pro free trade.
Friedman, as most non leftists, was rationally selfish, he advocated for stuff that he thought benefited him, his family, his friends, his relatives, up to his country.
Carbon offsets don't answer my question.
my question is why do you feel the west should pay the global south because of global warming, without account
lol the west too get massive benefit from cheap labor in the south and Asian!
What planet are you living on really ….
climate change affects Europe *positively*, Canada as well. and not by small amounts, it's a huge boon, kind of a miracle.
they are making decent wine in Germany (!!!!). our beaches are usable in may which they never were in the north.
fog almost disappeared in the pianura padana.
far less expense for heating which was always the worst utility bill around here.
plenty of celsius yet to reach full year around of beaches being decent.
With all due respect talk as much about Europe you want because I don’t know it that much so I can’t sayanything about it ….
but stop talking about Canada .
You have no god damn idea wtf you talking about .
No Canada ain’t benefiting at all , we have more problem then ever in agriculture , floods and fire forest and **** like that ….
And what’s most problematic is Canada climate changes is twice as fast because it’s nearer to the north ….
my question is why do you feel the west should pay the global south because of global warming, without accounting for all the blessings the west provided to the global south, like antibiotics, electricity and everything else we discovered or invented including capitalism itself?
why are you so keen to pinpoint purported negative externalities we should pay Forza and not the monstrous, historically unprecedented, positive externalities we created for every living human being?
the vast majority of t
You live in a fishbowl my friend.
Evrything is interconnected, pollution doesn't just stop at your frontiers.
Western countries also live on the discoveries of eastern world, that's how science works, scientist don't recreate the wheel with every discovery.
You only care about italy that's fine, so you won't mind if some nuclear power plant explode next to your country, not your problem.
Or even better some nukes fly around, not your problem either.
Or some country throwing poison (of your choice) in the ocean and you are left with nothing in it.
Or war coming to you cause inequalities have been growing too much that people around are starving, so you now make a beautifull target.
Nah really tell me how you care only about northern italy.
This is fine.
everything we invented and they are using, they got a positive externality from us even if the patent was expired or the idea was never patentable right?
so do antibiotics, electricity and everything else. account for all the externalities that benefit every single country that DID NOT invent them but benefited from them, then please sure subtract global warming.
we pay only if the net is negative (it isn't).
or the game only works for negatives?
they should pay us significant percentages of their G
What an utterly ignorant post. How do you think hospitals and electricity came to India in the first place? And what do you think the total value extracted by the British Empire was?
If the seven states that have labeled the toss up swing states listed below are given to the candidate ahead in these polls, then Harris barely gets the 270+ electoral college votes needed.
These are the swing states where Kamala gained ground since the debate:
AZ: Trump leads by 0.5% with 5.5% Un (Kamala +1.5%, Trump +1.3%)
MI: Kamala up by 2.7% with 5.5% Un (Kamala +1.9%, Trump +1.1%) Note that with RFK Jr on ballot there might be just 3% or less Undecided which would make it very hard for Trump to win...
NV: Kamala up by 0.7% with 6.1% Un (Kamala +1.6%, Trump +1.1%)
PA: Kamala up by 1.5% with 4.9% Un (Kamala +2%, Trump +1.1%)
These are the swing states where Kamala lost ground since
Harris winning Arizona or Georgia or North Carolina would be a much needed backstop to be able to still win if she is let down by Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.
You live in a fishbowl my friend.
Evrything is interconnected, pollution doesn't just stop at your frontiers.
Western countries also live on the discoveries of eastern world, that's how science works, scientist don't recreate the wheel with every discovery.
You only care about italy that's fine, so you won't mind if some nuclear power plant explode next to your country, not your problem.
Or even better some nukes fly around, not your problem either.
Or some country throwing poison (of your choice) i
We were talking climate change not everything else.
It's interesting you cite nearby nuclear because we were idiot enough to close down ours, while neighbors kept theirs, we cannot tell them where to put it and there is some close to our borders, we routinely buy their nuclear generated electricity, and if a major disaster happens we get the negative externalities without having benefitted from the positive ones.
Which is why it was completely irrational to shut down ours after Chernobyl, even if the safety reason made sense (they didn't) because others nearby didn't shut down theirs.
Which is exactly the same for emission reductions. Even if you believe reducing emissions worldwide is very important and failing to do so costly on net for every country (it's obviously false for cold countries but let's imagine you believe it's true), you are the idiot if you reduce yours a lot and others don't or do far less.
There are some tragedies of the commons where you accept the rational choice is to defect as there either can't be a worldwide enforceable mechanism of compliance, or installing one is worse than allowing the tragedy of the commons to unfold.
The sea example is interesting as well.
Northern African countries are polluting the Mediterranean a lot and we can't do anything about it. It is already happening and the "very smart" European solution is to tell European fleets to pollute less and to be even stricter with plastic dump from ships and so on, while Egypt does the **** it wants lol.
I mean we are already the idiot of the global village in Europe, hyper regulating ourselves why others exploit us, self destroying our economy in various sectors (see automotive now dying fast because of the psychopathic regulations introduced), we are even giving up on AI because of "safety" while most of the world is racing toward the inevitable AGI which we evidently will suffer any negative externality from the same, with reduced benefits because we won't be the owners.
And yet here we are listening to people like you who claim "it's all connected!!" As if I didn't know... It's all connected, and the rational choice is in every dynamic to exclusively do what's in your rational self interest to do for that dynamic, because others do that and you are just the sucker if you don't.
I've been on the fence as to who to vote for but based on this amazing op-ed in today's NYT......
Padma Lakshmi: Why Kamala Harris’s Love of Cooking Could Help Make Her a Great President
.......I'm writing in Bobby Flay
If the seven states that have labeled the toss up swing states listed below are given to the candidate ahead in these polls, then Harris barely gets the 270+ electoral college votes needed.
Harris winning Arizona or Georgia or North Carolina would be a much needed backstop to be able to still win if she is let down by Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.
Wisconsin looks like it could be the state to decide the election. The 10 electoral votes would swing it to Trump. I have hope that Walz could be a factor. Also RFK Jr. is on the WI ballot and that could help.
On the bright side Baldwin is running for re-election as the Senator in Wisconsin so that could affect the outcome because of her supporters who would likely vote for Kamala.
If Trump takes Michigan I don't think the election will be close because my guess is that Wisconsin and PA will also fall. But you never know.
If PA goes for Trump the only hope would be that NC could go for Kamala given what is happening with the governor race. And AZ could also go for Kamala especially given the Senate race there could draw voters.
It is so close in so many states...
and not being a leftist I don't internalize costs paid by others, they literally don't matter to me, so I exclusively care about northern Italy which is where I live and where warming is a blessing.
This is disgraceful.
A few months ago, I called you depraved. Any doubts I had about that assessment have been erased.
As an aside, I didn't fully appreciate that you defined anyone who gives a **** about people he doesn't know as a leftist. I guess that explains why you believe the world is mostly comprised of leftists.
