2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Ok I get that, but I don't get why one prior should be considered any more likely than another in the absence of evidence. Ladyb's post seemed to be implying that because the Trump numbers were the same across years, this was essentially evidence for scenario a) in my toy example above. I don't find that evidence in and of itself persuasive enough to make that case.
because you have evidence, as trump already conducted 2 campaigns.
I do agree ladyb draws the wrong conclusions but first and foremost that's because she (he?) is analyzing data that is incomplete for now
I don’t think anyone argues for only using Darwinian evolution. We have the same desire to reproduce as other animals, same desire for food, for self preservation and the mammalian desire for sociability. I could go on.
If you ignore these aspects of our existence, you will most often draw the wrong conclusions about human behaviour. That’s not to say evolution is the whole story, but it’s at least as important as environmental explanations, probably more so.
The Darwinian story is THE story of the animals of this world, but if you’re looking for fulfillment by over-identifying with our ancestors, you’ll be found lacking.
Your biology does not make you a man in full or a human being in full. If being a man or a human is on a spectrum, then biology puts you on the lowest end of that spectrum.
Luciom’s perspective is exactly right if you see humanity as simply another animal. While it’s true that many who try to go beyond the biological are overly feminine in the regressive sense, that shouldn’t undermine that life is calling us forward to greatness. It would be feminine in the regressive sense to not fast from our bio / animalistic desires and to not follow the call to greatness.
This is my issue with the idea of MAGA.. greatness is no longer what we think of as the American Dream (decades of work for upward economic mobility). Greatness requires a dream, but in order for a dream to truly be a dream, it must extend beyond the practical.
We are not aiming high enough.
we are just another animal but life is never simple. animals aren't simple. not even bacteria are.
you answer the call to greatness by being very human not by transcending humanity.
the ubermensch isn't beyond the human
you answer the call to greatness by being very human not by transcending humanity.
the ubermensch isn't beyond the human
Agreed, but a human being is the full version of a human. A human animal is the lowest version.
A human being has unified with the soul. A human animal is alienated from the soul.
To put it another way with toy numbers, let's say that 18 people showed up to vote in 2020 and 10 voted for Biden and 8 voted for Trump. Then in 2024 14 people showed up to vote and 8 voted for Trump and 6 voted for Harris.
a). ladyb is saying the same 8 people showed up both times for Trump, but 4 of the Biden voters stayed home, making it 8 Trump - 6 Harris in 2024.
b). Others are saying that actually, 6 of the previous Trump voters showed up and 2 stayed home, and of the previous 10 Biden voter
MAGA is the "more like" proof between a and b.
It is highly likely that the MAGA that voted for Trump in 2020 showed up at about the same numbers in 2024 instead of staying home. This thread and video after video over the years states as much at the MAGA commitment.
And frankly if you are equally weighting a & b, then my opinion of you has lowered considerably.
MAGA is the "more like" proof between a and b.
It is highly likely that the MAGA that voted for Trump in 2020 showed up at the same numbers in 2024 instead of staying home. This thread video after video over the years states as much.
I can certainly get behind your conclusion, but in your OP you left all that reasoning as implied and presented the conclusion as a fait accompli just based on the numbers alone, which I found unpersuasive as an argument.
MAGA is the "more like" proof between a and b.
It is highly likely that the MAGA that voted for Trump in 2020 showed up at about the same numbers in 2024 instead of staying home. This thread and video after video over the years states as much at the MAGA commitment.
And frankly if you are equally weighting a & b, then my opinion of you has lowered considerably.
if it was MAGA they would have voted republican down ballot.
instead we have evidence of split ticketing basically everywhere in purple areas especially. Against Harris but favourable for democrats otherwise.
those aren't maga, maga won't ever vote a democratic Senate candidate then vote Trump. MAGA considers democrats the enemy of the people.
and given trump GAINED with minorities, that isn't MAGA either.
the Latino or black man who either didn't vote or votes Biden in 2020 and voted Trump this time isn't MAGA.
it's just someone who realizes Harris suck
trump gained with independent moderates, 5% of people in Ohio voted for Trump and for Brown.
more than 2% in Arizona voted for Trump bit didn't vote for Kari Lake, how the hell is that maga lol
if it was MAGA they would have voted republican down ballot.
instead we have evidence of split ticketing basically everywhere in purple areas especially. Against Harris but favourable for democrats otherwise.
those aren't maga, maga won't ever vote a democratic Senate candidate then vote Trump. MAGA considers democrats the enemy of the people.
and given trump GAINED with minorities, that isn't MAGA either.
the Latino or black man who either didn't vote or votes Biden in 2020 and voted Trump this ti
You are mixing topics. Stay on the topic of "who stayed home."
Maga did not stay home. Some Dems stayed home, (and a some swiched which is off topic).
Kari Lake is so flawed that the GOP tried to get her to not run.
Harris received the one-two Teddy of people staying home and some switching but anyone putting up a toy game of MAGA stayed home is boneheaded.
You are mixing topics. Stay on the topic of "who stayed home."
Maga did not stay home. Some Dems stayed home, (and a some swiched which is off topic).
Kari Lake is so flawed that the GOP tried to get her to not run.
There is only a fixed number of votes. The votes that Luciom is describing who voted Trump but dems for house/senate have to belong to some category and that headcount is then no longer available for a different category. They clearly didn't stay home and are clearly not MAGA. Your own argument that Trump getting identical numbers --> all MAGA is predicated on these people not existing.
Harris received the one-two Teddy of people staying home and some switching but anyone putting up a toy game of MAGA stayed home is boneheaded.
The toy game was intended to illustrate the options for easier discussion, and also the fact that you haven't made a particularly persuasive argument for your point. I wasn't saying I personally subscribe to one view or the other.
You are mixing topics. Stay on the topic of "who stayed home."
Maga did not stay home. Some Dems stayed home, (and a some swiched which is off topic).
Kari Lake is so flawed that the GOP tried to get her to not run.
Harris received the one-two Teddy of people staying home and some switching but anyone putting up a toy game of MAGA stayed home is boneheaded.
not many people stayed at home vs 2020, as I said, you used incomplete numbers.
lake is flawed because normal people easily despise her: but maga loves her.
and the people who switched aren't democrats. democrats almost all voted again and almost all voted Harris.
but only one third of the country is democrats. one third is independent. and a significant number of independents who voted Biden, didn't vote for Harris.
then trump also got most libertarian votes this time which isn't nothing (but those aren't votes lost by Harris)
It's a good thing there's not a dedicated thread to discuss this. Peoples feelings could get very hurt by the discussion
No idea how true that is in policy terms, but there's no reason federal funding should be involved in a personal and private decision that only adults can take on their own account.
Mr Trump may be emboldened by the fact that a single TV ad, a clip of Harris promising federal funds for convicted criminals to change gender, gave him a near 3-point advantage nationally. Just that one ad.
Since the election, Democrat poll firm Blueprint has found that, of 25 statements with which Trump voters were invited to agree or disagree as reasons for their vote, the statement that came third overall was:- 'Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class.' However, among swing voters -- and US presidential elections are apparently determined by quite a small number of swing voters in swing states -- this statement came top, even above those related to the economy. Journalistic comment, including fairly 'liberal' sources abroad, has taken the view that Democrats became wedded to a niche, academic, elitist ideology which people at large find baffling and bizarre.
No idea how true that is in policy terms, but there's no reason federal funding should be involved in a personal and private decision that only adults can take on their own account.
Mr Trump may be emboldened by the fact that a single TV ad, a clip of Harris promising federal funds for convicted criminals to change gender, gave him a near 3-point advantage nationally. Just that one ad.
Since the election, Democrat poll firm Blueprint has found that, of 25 statements with which Trump voters were in
The federal funding thing would mean medicaid and ACA subsidized plans won't cover gender stuff. That's tens of millions of people.
It's a huge win for our side and a huge loss for the other side, if it becomes policy.
My position has always been that trans isn't a medical issue, so the concept itself of "trans care" is an oxymoron, and elective surgeries or non surgical modification are a lifestyle choice that shouldn't be allowed to minors same as we don't allow tattoos in many places, and anyway should never be subsidized by taxpayers directly or indirectly.
Democrats became wedded to a niche, academic, elitist ideology which people at large find baffling and bizarre.
Good luck to the trans activists’ ongoing pursuit to “educate” the rest of us.
It's not even about Darwinian evolution at all for me for this topic (meat eating).
It's about what you are built for, whatever it was that built you that way.
What is the whole story is that we are heavily programmed at a biological level to eat meat (from large mammals especially but not exclusively), which comes with a myriad of other factors that allowed us to eat meat back in the day and so on.
Embracing and accepting human nature works because if you are programmed to eat meat (and all the ac
You gave the picture of an argument that doesn’t go through. You can still be a hedonist and a vegan at the same time… It isn’t necessarily a health thing or a virtue thing, just a belief that animals have certain rights.
I mean humans crossculturally have also practiced certain things like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, blood sports, dueling, war rape, selling of women all of which can be said to inflame the same tendencies that you are speaking of. I don’t think that just because those practices are rampant that they have some kind of moral legitimacy.
At the end of the day you are trying to say x is moral because we evolved doing x in very colorful language. If it’s about health then that’s an epistemic thing. If it’s about having fun, I don’t think people that are vegan automatically don’t have fun, although it’s much harder granted given their view of the world. But I don’t think “fun” is morality either, that’s just a really weird way of looking at it.
My position has always been that trans isn't a medical issue, so the concept itself of "trans care" is an oxymoron, and elective surgeries or non surgical modification are a lifestyle choice that shouldn't be allowed to minors same as we don't allow tattoos in many places, and anyway should never be subsidized by taxpayers directly or indirectly.
For your purposes, does it matter whether transgender care is "medical care"? I assume that your position is that tax dollars should not be going toward medical care.
The federal funding thing would mean medicaid and ACA subsidized plans won't cover gender stuff. That's tens of millions of people.
It's a huge win for our side and a huge loss for the other side, if it becomes policy.
My position has always been that trans isn't a medical issue, so the concept itself of "trans care" is an oxymoron, and elective surgeries or non surgical modification are a lifestyle choice that shouldn't be allowed to minors same as we don't allow tattoos in many places, and anywa
Aren’t these ACA marketplaces selling plans from private companies but subsidized?
So it could be that the plans themselves don’t include transgender healthcare but the company could have other plans that do in which case you will still be subsidizing them while removing the benefit for the end consumer.
Actually you will be subsidizing the plans of people who have transgender healthcare coverage who share companies with state subsidized plans.
Unless you want to pass a federal law banning insurance from covering the healthcare which seems pretty big government anti-libertarian to me.
