2024 ELECTION THREAD

No. That isn't obvious. Given Trump's baseline personality flaws, cognitive decline might actually be a positive, because more things will be delegated to (hopefully) more principled persons. I dont think we can predict how cognitive decline would interact with his baseline personality disorder over a 4 year stretch.

It seems to me there are more adults in the room than 4 years ago who think they will be able to manage Trump, and possibly run a shadow presidency behind his back while he spends most of his time golfing. Whether that is how things would work out I dont know.

Trump doesn't have a great record of keeping principled people around.

Cognitive decline doesn't necessarily imply increased delegation.

Also, if Trump is elected, there almost certainly will be fewer adults in the room than there were in his first term. Almost every adult associated with Trump's first administration ended up diminished, highly frustrated, or both. And a few were totally ruined. Consider this question. What sort of lawyer would agree to be Trump's AG? The answer is only a partisan hack with no concern for professional reputation.

People like Mnuchin, Tillerson, Mattis, and Bill Barr weren't my cup of tea, but they were real people with reputations and stature. And I suspect that each regrets agreeing to serve in Trump's administration.

A LOT of high profile finance and tech people are supporting Trump. I dont think the intention is to destroy the country just to make a few extra bucks. So even if you assume they are just been selfish rich guys, that would still indicate they feel a Trump presidency can be navigated without "democracy being destroyed" when we get to the other side.

Maybe they are completely wrong and you are right. But that isn't obvious to me to be the case. But yes, the fact many of the people in his first presidency indicated it was a bad experience isn't a good sign.

Of course, right wing media is reporting similar stories of working for Harris. Although in fairness it is more just stories of her being a horrible person to work for, and not her demanding them break laws for her and then take the fall.

I'm sort of curious of Zuckerberg....what are the theories for his apparent about-face on Trump?

Maybe Musk will step up to head up the foreign service and bring his unique brand of "go **** yourself" diplomacy. What could go wrong?

I think Zuckerberg is scared of jail

Musk is the most high profile person, but there are actually A LOT. As I said, they are all Americans so destroying the country isn't in their best interest; so obviously they are of the opinion this is something that can be managed, and is preferable to a Harris presidency.

A lot of stuff that probably shouldn't be politically polarized (like space exploration) are getting politically polarized, and I think a lot of smart people are worried the Democrats are on the wrong side of too many issues.

This is a segue, and veering into sexual dimorphism evolutionary psychology, but Yglesias has noted that much of the polarization seems to be fueled by sex/gender polarization.

As the Democrat party becomes more and more (white collar) female dominated (and vice versa); the Democrat party itself is more and more taking partisan positions that conform to the norms of this demographic.

And a lot of powerful, influential people are worried this group is not on the right side of too many issues. The California Coastal Commission basically going after SpaceX for completely blatant political reasons (to the point even Newsom has called them out and said it is unacceptable) is worrying a lot of people the direction the Democrat Party is going.

I very easily can imagine a high-profile person supporting Trump because he believes that he will be personally enriched by Trump's policies. For some people, that's the only voting issue. But the bar for that person agreeing to serve in Trump's administration is much, much higher because the reputational risk is much, much greater. Will some adult make the same mistake that Mnuchin or Mattis made? It's possible, of course, but I would fall off my log backwards if a second Trump administration featured more adults than his first administration.

Fair enough. The way things stand now there appears to be a 50/50 chance we will never find out.

Yes, it's really bad for personal freedoms when a a serious presidential candidate starts saying he's going to throw random people in jail, sue media companies and news magazine shows for interviewing an opponent etc. But seems like this kind of dystopia is what the far right wants.

Plumbing is pretty simple. Don't think I would ever let a plumber do anything on my property until I fully understand all the details.

In the last FEW posts, the topic of The 2024 ELECTION has reared it's ugly head. Well done!

You ever heard of getting a second opinion? Also pretty sure a very large part of diagnosis is pure probability.

What does getting a second opinion have to do with not going to doctors for advice on probability? Or did you think my statement "we go to medicals doctor for advice on medicine" meant you are obliged to take the first opinion proffered, or take the opinion of any given doctor as gospel? If so, your comprehension is truly awful.

I imagine they're trained on the part of part of probability that is involved in diagnosis, maybe not so much on probability in general. Although having said that, the study chez linked would seem to imply otherwise.

Chill broseph, it's all relevant. We are discussing campaign issues in the election thread.

Speaking of the total business genius, Leon hath now decreed that if you block someone on X formerly known as Twitter they can still view your profile and posts

Leon really is an incel who made it

Don't have a clue about Tillerson other than he called Trump a ****ing moron, which scores him a few points in my book.

So what does blocking them actually do? Put them on ignore?

Like here? If someone blocks me I can still read their posts

A doctor's advice is largely based on probability. They look at your symptoms and make a probabilistic assessment of the most likely reason you are exhibiting them. They generally suck at it, which is why people get second opinions.

So, your thesis is that we shouldn't trust doctors on matters related to medicine because they suck at probability, correct?

And if you did and still seriously disagreed with the plumber you would be the favorite.

Just as a Princeton trained psychologist, guidance counselor, or even registered nurse would be a favorite to have the better opinion about whether the child they knew should have transition surgery if their opinion differed from a below average doctor who "specialized" in the subject. Doubly so if there was a financial incentive that subconsciously or consciously influenced the doctor. In fact everyone on this forum who had a child in this situation and was advised by an urgent care doctor to get that surgery, would not do it if they had a non doctor house guest for a week and was urged to not do the surgery by their guest - if that guest was ukemaster.

You know when people get second opinions, they get them from other doctors, right? Not Ron Desantis or internet culture warrior bros.