2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
By having democrat teachers.
And you don't need to "convert" red states people only purple states. Where you very often govern at the urban level and so on.
Anyway Americans are more educated today that they have ever been, why is it they are moving against you if education if the key?
When Obama comfortably won twice fewer American were graduated
You realize standards are not set by teachers, right?
Also here’s a question on top of that. The vast majority of police are Republican. (80%+). Does that mean that when murder rates increase that Republicans are directly responsible for that since they are the ones on the ground enforcing the policies set by various aspects of the government?
As for your second point, the people you are talking about attaining higher education are voting for Democrat. Doesn’t matter if your top line education is improving if high school degrees are worth less now than they were 20 years ago…
Can't make this up. Poster who is arguing his side is fighting for democracy and the other side is fighting to destroy it literally asks for someone who disagrees with him to be banned in his very next post.
Democracy is when people post to internet forums and the more people posting to internet forums the more democracy we have.
Dem messaging is fine, in the sense it well conveys their actual views: everything is going according to plan, maybe we should ever so slightly improve people's lives to placate them.
The problem is that most people disagree and view the country as badly broken, and their lives are getting worse with each generation. Obviously, technology is better. But in the ways directly connected to politics.
Harris did make some good promises. 20k to buy your first home. But even the thickest libs inadvertently admit that such things are rarely possible in the current system. When people say, why don't we have family leave under Dem rule they say "take a civics lesson" or point to a few "rogue" senators.
That's the point. Special interests have billions to work with and they need to flip 1 or 2 or 3 senators and they get 50+ tries. And if there is some heroic effort to defeat them, they are back the next day with billions more to try again.
People might not know the details, but they know that whatever they put into the black box of DC, whatever comes out is bad for anyone who isn't very well off, and often even for the well off.
They get Einstein's definition of insanity.
Young people, in particular, are vastly better informed and have learned, from right and left, to question things in a big picture way. Old people who rely on MSM or have outdated understandings of politics are fish who think talk of air and land is crazy propaganda.
"Centrist" Americans are like, "wow, it's crazy how everyone but people who share my unquestioning, inflexible world view is brainwashed."
It's a two week solution. A class in basic probability, and the fallacies of Aristotle where we pay every citizen who passes the course $500, would pretty much fix things. The problem is that the well educated aren't that keen on requiring mild expertise in these subjects because they themselves are scared they would struggle. Witness the three supposedly smart posters who didn't realize they were making a fool of themselves when they refused to admit that the Guam results did actually have at least a small impact on the probability that Trump would win.
ES2 I know you are obsessed (no negative connotation: you simply talk about that every chance you get) with family leave.
But why do you think it should be federal policy? Why can't you appreciate the treasure you have with your federalist system, and campaign for that at the state level?
FMLA exists already (12 weeks if the company is big enough), and it shouldn't exist, and the topic shouldn't be a federal one.
It's a topic of labor relations and tradeoffs which your constitution leaves to the states as most things are and should.
You are simply trying to force your preferences to people you don't actually share a polity with in the sense you think you do.
For ex here in the EU we have some federal stuff but family leave is a state level thing. Why the **** would or should I care about family leave in Estonia? Why should my opinion matter to determine which family leave Belgians have?
Why do Yoh want to decide for Alabamans?
It's a two week solution. A class in basic probability, and the fallacies of Aristotle where we pay every citizen who passes the course $500, would pretty much fix things. The problem is that the well educated aren't that keen on requiring mild expertise in these subjects because they themselves are scared they would struggle.
Nah why would a 13 point swing in an N>20K SAMPLE about a dichotomic answer matter...
It's a two week solution. A class in basic probability, and the fallacies of Aristotle where we pay every citizen who passes the course $500, would pretty much fix things. The problem is that the well educated aren't that keen on requiring mild expertise in these subjects because they themselves are scared they would struggle. Witness the three supposedly smart posters who didn't realize they were making a fool of themselves when they refused to admit that the Guam results did actually have at l
Could be interesting but I think the biggest hurdle would be actually convincing congress, senate, and president that this bill would be worthwhile. Also not sure a two week class would be retained by many people.
I’m open to innovative solutions but they come with an adoption problem namely that any solution that’s not already on the table has a hard time getting picked up. You actually may be right that this solution would work but it would take 20 years to convince people of it anyway.
It's a two week solution. A class in basic probability, and the fallacies of Aristotle where we pay every citizen who passes the course $500, would pretty much fix things. The problem is that the well educated aren't that keen on requiring mild expertise in these subjects because they themselves are scared they would struggle. Witness the three supposedly smart posters who didn't realize they were making a fool of themselves when they refused to admit that the Guam results did actually have at l
I disagree with most of your solutions, but I think paying people to do socially beneficial self improvement is a great idea that is rarely discussed.
E.g. target low income people with classes where you are paid to learn how to cook cheap and healthy meals and given a crock pot and whatever else.
Give a man a fish and then teach him to fish.
Can't make this up. Poster who is arguing his side is fighting for democracy and the other side is fighting to destroy it literally asks for someone who disagrees with him to be banned in his very next post.
I'm unsurprised that a random poster drew this conclusion.
Luciom, you are not a random poster, nor a moron. You liked this post. I'm not going to ask this poster to explain what he means, because I know all the fallacies that are forthcoming. Why don't you explain yourself?
Well when your evidence that it happened is an anonymous source saying they heard something, and multilpe other people who were there saying it didn't happen then indeed it is debunked.
The onus is on you to provide better evidence. An anonymous source saying they heard something is not sufficient I'm afraid.
Spoiler
Verdict: DEBUNKED
There is no solution, never has been. Most don’t realize this and are therefore more easily manipulated by goons like David Sklansky, religious blowhards, and the screaming political pundits.
Read The Bible for proof.
ES2 I know you are obsessed (no negative connotation: you simply talk about that every chance you get) with family leave.
But why do you think it should be federal policy? Why can't you appreciate the treasure you have with your federalist system, and campaign for that at the state level?
FMLA exists already (12 weeks if the company is big enough), and it shouldn't exist, and the topic shouldn't be a federal one.
It's a topic of labor relations and tradeoffs which your constitution leaves to the st
The reason I often choose family leave is that it is just about the least controversial issue in the US. 70% of Republicans support it, but the DNC is (de facto) opposed. It's an issue where almost every normal person is on one side, and almost everyone in DC is on the other.
Also, only 8 countries on earth lack it. No other issue highlights how effed our system is so well
As to the rest, I just disagree with you philosophically. I think gov/society should insure basic conditions for human flourishing. New parents, especially moms, spending time with kids is key to that.
After that point, I become more of a libertarian. If you start a business and get rich, good for you. But I don't want people to miss that opportunity because they had terrible childhood development.
I also don't want to be robbed or murdered by or pay for welfare for a person who had terrible early development.
I don't really care about maintaining strict federalism. I'm more pragmatic about such things.
Well when your evidence that it happened is an anonymous source saying they heard something, and multilpe other people who were there saying it didn't happen then indeed it is debunked.
The onus is on you to provide better evidence. An anonymous source saying they heard something is not sufficient I'm afraid.
Spoiler
Verdict: DEBUNKED
What if I told you that repeating something doesn't make it true?
I'm unsurprised that a random poster drew this conclusion.
Luciom, you are not a random poster, nor a moron. You liked this post. I'm not going to ask this poster to explain what he means, because I know all the fallacies that are forthcoming. Why don't you explain yourself?
I agree with the general idea that the fact people who purportedly present themselves as defenders of democracy are very keen on censorship is a huge red flag.
And that applies even in private forum where the legal right to censorship exists.
People in general shouldn't ask for censorship of ideas they dislike, or people they find a nuisance, especially when it's possible to silence/blocks them (!!!), because democracy broadly intended can only flourish by conversation.
Or in other terms you should let morons try to defend silly claims, at most you stop listening to them.
BJ defends a lot of claims I found either silly, or misleading, or completely insane at times depending on the exact claims.
I often don't read him, and when I do I rarely agree with him.
So what? Why ban him? Some people might not even ever get exposed to the "full MAGA experience", do you think it's bad if they do? It's stuff that they will need to reckon with sooner or later especially after this electoral outcome.
I disagree with most of your solutions, but I think paying people to do socially beneficial self improvement is a great idea that is rarely discussed.
E.g. target low income people with classes where you are paid to learn how to cook cheap and healthy meals and given a crock pot and whatever else.
Give a man a fish and then teach him to fish.
I don't think this would make a dent. When folks talk about food deserts, it's not because poor and uneducated people don't understand how to make healthy meals or that junk food is bad for them. Most of them understand the obvious quite well, but there's a despondency that broadly exists across many low-income areas, and when people are hopeless and stressed, they assuage that with short-term solutions like the dopamine hits they get from eating fast food and taking drugs. Food deserts exist because those who are down on their luck don't make good decisions, and stores and restaurants that sell healthy food go out of business because no one buys it.
I agree with the general idea that the fact people who purportedly present themselves as defenders of democracy are very keen on censorship is a huge red flag.
And that applies even in private forum where the legal right to censorship exists.
People in general shouldn't ask for censorship of ideas they dislike, or people they find a nuisance, especially when it's possible to silence/blocks them (!!!), because democracy broadly intended can only flourish by conversation.
Or in other terms you should
Alright. We don't often agree, but I'll eat this one. Well spoken.
I don't really think BJ should be banned BTW. I think he is an annoying, worthless waste of oxygen, but I don't think he should be banned
