2024 ELECTION THREAD

The Kamala camp has been so locked in. Really a great campaign. One of the advantages is this time theres no one like Hillary and her team that thinks they “deserve” to win. They have ran the whole campaign as underdogs and ran through the finish line. Kamala supporters are confident we have the votes, but not in the sense of a 100% guaranteed win, more like 70%. I still think she wins all the swing states. If she does lose it will be very very close.

When God doesn’t keep his promises, rebellion is the right response. Believers are internally divided against themselves - rebellion vs reconciliation.

Often, this disappointment and inner conflict leads to a dis-spirited, going-through-the-motions form of faith.

538 has Harris back in front for the first time in a couple weeks but 50-49 likelihood so who gives a ****

What is interesting is that they seem to no longer view Michigan as a swing state and that it’s relatively firmly for kamala which is an odd development

I think there is a substantial likelihood that he has someone on payroll playing for him, but yes, his insistence on being well liked is a massive self own for anyone with a shred of critical thinking skills

I would assume something a lot of posters here miss, though I know its been mentioned, is the KamalaHQ social media accounts. They have been pumping out content for months.

My gf has her tiktok algo locked in but says shes been enjoying the Kamala memes

In regards to the overall discussion, because it’s relevant to the election- you can just learn stuff.

For example if youre really really concerned about your computer’s security to the point of paranoia, constantly worried about data loss and hackers, you can read manuals and take a class and get a certification like network +.

If you’re very worried about gender and sex related issues you can study gender. Of course, I assume that seems wrong to nany of you because it sounds woke or purple haired or whatever, but I can assure you spending a few weeks and taking a few gender classes will make you less paranoid about those issues and would be good for you and not inherently gay. Look for good material and rather than seeing a video about some “ woke” professor maybe learn the issues in greater depth.

Maybe instead of being some far left wokester I’m just trying to help. ♥

thats a wrap. election over

For every Jordan Peterson, who by the way I was a fan of for a few months actually, I went through a conservative phase, and most of my family in NYC is conservative. I met a number of top conservative thinkers who a couple of my cousins are friends with. But anyway that was a phase for me personally, there are many people on the left who no one on this site has heard of who have millions of followers from the left and some of them provide very good info. That’s why it’s important to get information from both sides.

Yup.

The standard biological definition of sex is males are designed to produce small, mobile gametes (sperm) and females to produce large immobile gametes (Ova).

Hence why sex is binary.

Honestly if the left stopped trying to argue against basic science, they find it much easier to win elections.

lol what a prediction. this is like an r/poker spost. 50-50, either you win the election or lose lol

Attempting to extract gender from the universal story within and know it by externalizing it — this will only corrupt it. Man, woman, and child can only be truly known in full by navigating through the hidden story within.

The CDC issued a correction the same week she made her statement yet this is supposed to be an example of the system not working? Still using your ridiculous adjectives I see. "violent unconstitutional order". You're unhinged.

in this case its 50.1 % to 49.9%
no need to count

That’s quite a deflationary definition of female. If that’s the case, why do we separate women’s sports and women’s bathrooms, etc? Seems like there are a lot more entailments to womanhood than simply having immobile gametes.

Also not even sure if that’s even the most instrumental definition of male/female. Seems like there are certain contexts where we might want to add additions to that definition.

How we chose to organise human society has no influence on how biological sex evolved.

It's really hard to know. It seems like a fairly good campaign to me, maybe 6.5/10 but we are guessing at how these things affect millions of people of all different types.

Was talking to a friend about celebrity endorsements. I can think of some reasons they might be bad: celebs are wealthy elites, and this shows you are on their side. Celebs live on a totally different planet and have no idea what normal life is like. You are insulting my intelligence by suggesting I would listen to Harrison Ford or Beyonce about politics, when you could be giving me rational reasons to support you

Could be good: our culture worships celebs and some people might actually listen to them. You can use them to draw people to your events. If enough celebs say the same thing, it can create the impression that this is the normal view. Celebrity endorsement seems to work for many other products.

There are probably too many variables to ever really study if it is good, bad or neutral. Like, maybe it depends on the celeb.

Was it good to pursue disaffected Republicans and run a pretty right wing campaign? I doubt we will ever know.

Should she have gone on Rogan? Who knows? Etc.

The huge dollop of irony: Trump is a celebrity.

I agree with the premise, but would suggest looking at what scientists say first I posted some great videos by Robert Sapolsky which are really easy to find by searching Sapolsky transgender or whatever.

You can study someone like Judith Butler (vidros also posted here, also easy to find on youtube) but all you'll really learn is what she thinks. That's more like reading the book of Mormon, which can be valuable. But from a non-Mormon perspective, you are not learning much information beyond the content of Mormon scripture.

If you really want to dig in, I'd look at both of thhe above, as well as Butler opponents like Kathleen Stock, as well as some of the academic fraud surrounding the issue.

Luciom ignored my question but based on your definition doesn't this mean that people who don't produce sperm or ova are biologically sexless?

Nathaniel Bronze really just phoning it in at this point

But then you have hermaphrodites...

Were you one of the people calling the Olympic Boxer a dude too?

The reference point for all hermaphrodites or DSDs is the presence of elements of male and/or female anatomy. There is no third sex.

No.

I'm not claiming there is a third sex. Just jaq'in off

So if a hermaphrodite has biology designed to produce both sperm and ova, which sex are they? Is it always the case that one is more developed or prominent than the other?