***Official H&F LC Thread***
A valid strategy for getting ripped imo.
(From http://extrafabulouscomics.com/, kyleb's (RIP) favorite web comic)
I am going to post here because this is a mental health issue. Not because I have a political view.
This is my 2c opinion. Read it for what it is worth.
There are lies, Damn Lies... and then there are Statistics (or lets say reports based on recorded information.)
I am not an American but I have travelled to Seattle every year at the same time for 4 days or so for the last 15 years or so.
From 2010 until 2022 (just post covid) or so Seattle was an amazing city. Super clean/friendly. You could eas
Not again. Look this is all anecdotal stuff.
You got some sources for this stuff? It's really hard to verify your anecdotal accounts of strolling through Seattle. And even if you've got some stats on Seattle, there is still an entire rest of the country to account for. I have no doubt we could find some cities where crime went up. Surely we can also find some where it went down. You know how we could maybe weigh all this stuff? How about some stats?
Also one more question, the people who you think are responsible for this spike in crime, do they get credit for reducing violent crime? It sounds like we both agree this was accomplished.
If you say violent crime has decreased (because of stats) then make the extension that Crime under Biden has decreased, that is a 'statistic.'
It may be true that violent crime has gone down, but the every day person does not see violent crime.
Extending the violent crime statistic to saying that (overall) Crime has gone down in the last 2-3 years is not how people feel.
Yes! Exactly. It's feels based.
Hey maybe you could post some of these other "overall" crime statistics? Then we can actually dig into them and see what's up.
Ok but we (the left) do not base our claim on feel but reports and statistics!
Well, not so much "reports", but definitely statistics.
Here is the reality that makes this issue hard for left/right to understand.
If I change the law to make any theft under $900 not a true crime and will not be reported/prosecuted, nor added to a report on overall crime then it is true that 'reported crime' has gone down.
FFS man, just read the article I posted. What you're saying didn't happen and is perfect example of the misinformation that you have succumbed to. California raised the level of theft to qualify as a felony to $950. They did this to keep pace with inflation (you know that thing that Rich Muny is going on about). Theft under $950 is still a crime. But it is a misdemeanor. So it is 100% reported as a crime.
In Texas you have to steal over $2K worth of stuff to qualify as a felony. So Republican stronghold Texas is arguably more lenient than California. But no one seems to be complaining about them. You wanna guess why?
Everyone sees the shops closing and petty theft going on, open drug use on the streets (not a crime in the last 4 years) What used to be recorded as a crime... now NOT recorded as a crime has probably gone up 1000%. This is just a guess, but 4 years ago, I never saw any petty theft. Now I can see it and the results of it every time I walk on the street.
Yes, a guess is exactly what it is. And clearly you are very comfortable basing your decisions on that. Why look at acutal statistics when you can make up nice round numbers in your head! They're definitely easier to work with.
I see it and feel it, because the stores are closing (Also True) The stores say they are closing because they are no longer profitable. What they really mean is that we are being robbed on a daily basis and our police have been defunded to the point that there is essentially a no response to a theft under $900.
This is the kind of thing where actually reading stuff would help a lot. Here's a link that describes a study
which shows that what you are saying is not true:
The effect of theft on retailers’ bottom lines is largely in line with what it has been in past years, according to a key National Retail Federation study.....
External theft, which includes organized retail crime, was again reported as the largest source of shrink last year at 36.15%, but that was slightly below 37% in 2021. Internal theft, or goods stolen by employees, rose slightly to 28.85% from 28.5% in 2021. Process and control failures and errors made up 27.29% of shrink in 2022, up from 25.7% the year prior.
Here's the whole link if you want to read it (I doubt you will, but here it is):
Your post could not be a more perfect illustration of my point. Thanks. I'll give you more than 2c. If we've ever meet, I'll buy you all the beer you can drink.
Yes, a guess is exactly what it is. And clearly you are very comfortable basing your decisions on that.
Remember I am a tourist. I don't get to vote in your elections.
I do get to decide to go or not go to a place for vacation.
The regular drugstore that I always went to for the last 14 years.. Bartell Drugs closed sometime between Sept 2023 and Sept 2024 so
I had to go to a different drugstore this year.
I base my decision about crime increasing or decreasing on the armed guard wearing a bullet proof vest in the Walgreens
and the open drug use on the main commercial street between the Seattle convention center and Pike Place market.
My feeling of rising crime did not come from a report nor did that feeling of 'fear of being accosted by aggressive pan handlers' exist before 2022.
No report this year could convince me that 'crime' is down in Seattle from prior to 2022 to now.
Ok so I did read your report. Crime is up, Violence associated with theft is up. Retail theft isn't increasing 'MUCH'. profits are mostly unaffected. (but still up)
I believe that the profits are mostly unaffected because where the theft happens too much. the stores just close.
Meanwhile, 45% of retailers in the survey said they have reduced specific store hours to deal with crime and violence, nearly 30% said they somehow changed store product selection, and 28% reported closing a specific location because of crime.
Companies identified Los Angeles, San Francisco/Oakland, Houston, New York and Seattle as the five cities and metropolitan areas most affected by retail crime.]
I would like to see the full report that the article bases the statistics on to see if they are talking about 'reported' crime etc.
Maybe the petty theft that used to happen in the suburbs all moved to downtown Seattle, concentrating it to the area that I visit?!? In suburbs its lower and in downtown its higher... average only slightly up?
@mindflayer
I had some extra time so I decided to look at some Seattle stats. I know, crazy, right?
Guess what? It looks like your walks by the convention center may not reflect reality. Note these stats are for both violent crime AND property crime:
According to numbers from SPD's crime dashboard, there have been a total of 4,906 violent from in 2023, through Nov. 30.Additionally, SPD reported a total of 36,675 property crimes during that same time period.A check of police records show both categories are down from the corresponding period in 2022, with violent crimes dropping 7% overall, while property crimes have declined 17%.Moreover, both categories of crime are also below 2021's totals from January to November.
So down from 2021 to 2022 and down from 2022 from 2023.
If you read the whole article, it looks like just about every category of crime is down except for car thefts. So looks like if you're walking you're actually better off than a few years ago.
source: https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-...
And before you say anything, yes I know, you don't care about the stats. That is my point.
I didn't know that. Not really relevant, though.
I do get to decide to go or not go to a place for vacation.
The regular drugstore that I always went to for the last 14 years.. Bartell Drugs closed sometime between Sept 2023 and Sept 2024 so
I had to go to a different drugstore this year.
I base my decision about crime increasing or decreasing on the armed guard wearing a bullet proof vest in the Walgreens
and the open drug use on the main commercial street between the Seattle convention center and Pike Place market.
My feeling of rising crime did not come from a report nor did that feeling of 'fear of being accosted by aggressive pan handlers' exist before 2022.
No report this year could convince me that 'crime' is down in Seattle from prior to 2022 to now.
I know, but I posted it for you anyway.
Ok so I did read your report. Crime is up, Violence associated with theft is up. Retail theft isn't increasing 'MUCH'. profits are mostly unaffected. (but still up)
I believe that the profits are mostly unaffected because where the theft happens too much. the stores just close.
Meanwhile, 45% of retailers in the survey said they have reduced specific store hours to deal with crime and violence, nearly 30% said they somehow changed store product selection, and 28% reported closing a specific location because of crime.
Companies identified Los Angeles, San Francisco/Oakland, Houston, New York and Seattle as the five cities and metropolitan areas most affected by retail crime.]
I would like to see the full report that the article bases the statistics on to see if they are talking about 'reported' crime etc.
Maybe the petty theft that used to happen in the suburbs all moved to downtown Seattle, concentrating it to the area that I visit?!? In suburbs its lower and in downtown its higher... average only slightly up?
I'm glad that you read it. I'm also not surprised that it didn't change your opinion. The idea that theft has gone up is not supported. It hasn't. A couple of posts ago we agreed that violent crime is overall down, but the specific subset that is associated with shop lifting is up, so that makes it a problem? Despite overall violent crime being down? Come on.
I'd like to see the full report also, but not motivated to track it down. I'd also like to see any objective data from you aside from your personal observations. Let me know when you've got some.
This is statistics.
The article does not give the key metric nor the timeframe for External theft which seems to be the only metric of importance.
They combine and hide the two terms in a umbrella called Retail Shrink. This is what you are referring to.
Maybe the internal theft is down 30% but we never see it and it does not affect our safety, offsetting an increase in External theft by 30%, which everyone does see and feel.
I just made up the 30%, but the following part of the article seems to support an increase in External theft.
Sixty-seven percent of respondents reported more violence associated with organized retail crime than a year ago. In the last survey, 81% reported an increase in violence.
This is the part of retail shrink that average people see and feel, maybe that is why they think it is up?
Or maybe the amount of internal and external theft is the same, but the thieves all became 60-80% more violent?
Dude, can you read? I just posted a source that showed otherwise. I even bolded the relevant parts for you. Here it is again. Link to source in last post.
Dude, you all lost and I'm trying to explain what happened. I don't know why you're arguing, as you know you lost the trifecta.
No one cares about these specific statistics as much as you seem to think they should, really. People care about what they experience. LOL at trying to tell someone who experiences things getting worse that they are misinformed because you have some cherrypicked stats. That's the attitude that cost you all the election. I'm seriously not going through your wall of text to explain what I already told you.
Speaking of which, a fallacy in your posts is that you act like the data in the chart is relevant. You seem to think people should care that illegal border crossings are lower over the last several months. You really seem to think that's an important fact. Most people care about the total illegal border crossings during the Biden-Harris Administration and how Joe and Kamala appeared open to it for 3.5 years. In fact, the chart looks more like an attempt to test how well Biden's talking points are doing than they do an attempt to check for "misinformation".
This is dumb, even for you. Obviously dems care about school shootings. Their preferred solution revolves gun control. Your preferred solution seems to revolve around, I don't know... Secret service level details for every school? Every kid?
Every kid? Apparently not. Every politician? Well, they take care of themselves.
Courthouses don't have Secret Service details. They have basic security. Schools should be as secure as a federal courthouse.
How long until every AR-15 is confiscated under the Dem "plan"? Kids should wait that out and hope it works? You know AR-15s existed before all these school shootings started, don't you?
You keep posting the same stuff without responding to the stuff I post. I showed you that TX has an even higher rate for shoplifting to be a felony (over 2K). California's is only $950. Do they care less about crime in TX? They also don't often throw people in jail for misdemeanor shoplfiting in TX (like CA). Are you mad at TX? If not, why not? If so, is that Biden's fault too.
They punish crime in Texas. Even misdemeanors.
Psych meds messing with people's brains and inceldom because of atomization due to technology, urbanization, widespread divorce/out of wedlock birth, and cultural divergence are much bigger contributors to school shootings than gun availability. The current mental health paradigm doesn't really work for the types of people who commit school shootings and failed Trump assassinations. I'd argue it probably makes it worse. It seems to sorta work for neurotypical upper class white women, but even then it doesn't seem to be a great job. You can't substitute having friends and family with a transactional relationship with a therapist who has every incentive not to 'cure' you. Keeping families intact and people having more normal traditional social circles we had in the past are the key to preventing school shootings.
America considers people at the bottom of status hierarchies "losers" rather than "unfortunates" because we are collectively delusional about genetic determinism. If we stopped blaming the "losers" for their place at the bottom and just treated them more humanely, that would help too. Assuming people are blank slates and that their success or failure is entirely in their own control is a big part of the problem. Insisting its because of systematic racism/oppression is equally stupid.
Fixating on gun control rather than what it is about American society driving these violent impulses is toddler logic. Those violent impulses being so common is indicative of a very sick society; other countries in the world, even those with lots of guns, don't have that.
Brothels, churches, AA meetings, gyms, and amateur sporting clubs do more for improving a society's mental health than therapists and psychiatrists offices. People need to bang, exercise, and have social communities. Social Ties, not SSRIs.
Dude, you all lost and I'm trying to explain what happened. I don't know why you're arguing, as you know you lost the trifecta.
Look, I know you either can't or don't read. But I don't know why you keep saying I lost. I'm not a democrat, I don't particularly like Harris, and most importantly I didn't lose anything. I know it's really hard for you, but please try. Just read the actually words.
No one cares about these specific statistics as much as you seem to think they should, really.
FFS man. This is like exactly my point. You Trump slappies don't care about facts. That's probably why you haven't cited any. And I as I said explicitly I don't think you have any obligation to. I'd quote my last post to you, but just read it again, OK. You can vote however you want. It doesn't mean that you are operating on a different reality. And if you want to use that to vote, that is your prerogative.
People care about what they experience. LOL at trying to tell someone who experiences things getting worse that they are misinformed because you have some cherrypicked stats.
Oh, right, it's much better to have no stats.
People have tons of obvious biases. If you look at polls about how people feel about the economy this week, the results have dramatically changed. Republicans now feel good. Democrats feel worse. Nothing has actually changed. It's largely feels. As you are demonstrating repeatedly. But it's more feels based for Trump slappies (which is what the chart shows).
That's the attitude that cost you all the election. I'm seriously not going through your wall of text to explain what I already told you.
There is that 'you' again. I know you're confused, but this is getting old.
Speaking of which, a fallacy in your posts is that you act like the data in the chart is relevant. You seem to think people should care that illegal border crossings are lower over the last several months. You really seem to think that's an important fact. Most people care about the total illegal border crossings during the Biden-Harris Administration and how Joe and Kamala appeared open to it for 3.5 years. In fact, the chart looks more like an attempt to test how well Biden's talking points are doing than they do an attempt to check for "misinformation".
The data in the chart is relevant for only one thing. It shows that people who have a false sense of reality tended to vote for Trump. Anything else you think I am claiming it says is a figment of your extremely vivid imagination.
Every kid? Apparently not. Every politician? Well, they take care of themselves.
Courthouses don't have Secret Service details. They have basic security. Schools should be as secure as a federal courthouse.
How long until every AR-15 is confiscated under the Dem "plan"? Kids should wait that out and hope it works? You know AR-15s existed before all these school shootings started, don't you?
LOL. Here you go making stuff up again. You could just google this ****. School shootings came before AR-15s. Those were invented in the 1950s. There are reports of school shootings before this. I was going to post some citations, but you don't read them. But if you want one, let me know and I'll be happy to do it.
They punish crime in Texas. Even misdemeanors.
OK, so you've got some source they prosecute 100% shoplifters in TX. Great, let's see it. Of course, you don't because you don't do "facts" or "sources". Also because it's not actually true. But I'm sure it feels true to you! And isn't that really what's important after all.
I think in all this back and forth, you're really missing the point, so I will try yet again to explain what I'm saying, because it is clear what you think is saying is very different. I'm not saying Trump didn't win. I'm not saying Trump shouldn't have won. I'm also not telling Trump voters how they should vote. That's up to them. You're very fixated on those things because reading is hard for you, but I never said them.
What I am saying is that Trump voters are generally dumber than Harris voters. There is ample evidence outside of what we've been discussing to show this. If you need citations for any of this, let me know (some of it has already been sourced in my prior posts). It's well-demonstrated that more educated people skew towards Harris, and intelligence is positively (but obviously not perfectly) correlated with education. Further evidence of this is that people who think things that are clearly not true (which to most people besides you is a sign of not being that informed), tended to vote Trump. Also when you asked people what polices they liked without saying who supports them, people overwhelmingly support policies which Harris supports and Trump rejects. That's also good evidence that a lot of people that vote Trump aren't that informed. But they are free to bask in their ignorance and vote Trump. That's how democracy works. Just because stupid people are numerous and they backed the candidate that won, it doesn't make them less stupid. This is really my only point.
Trump is #1 with people who are less bright and less educated. I can't even believe this is debatable. Yet here we are. And before you say, "calling them stupid is exactly why YOU lost", remember that has zero to do with my point, although I know you love saying it. I'm not even saying that is untrue. But it doesn't change the underlying fact. They're still stupider. Sorry for the bad news.
Trump is #1 with people who are less bright and less educated. I can't even believe this is debatable. s.
As an outsider, I always ask myself is this true and if it is, what are the possible reasons for it?
More Educated may or may not mean brighter! How is this possible?!?
Getting into college or university used to be a proxy for hard working and intelligent.
Now look at this question from a distance and ask did I get value for money spent getting that degree?
This is what I told my kids when they were going into university. If you are getting a STEM or any degree that gets you into a professional designation = good value for money spent. You will pay off any debt quickly and increased your lifetime income by increasing your starting salary by a substantial amount.
If you are getting a liberal arts degree, you can't stop there, you must follow up with a second degree that increases your income ie. a law degree or maybe MBA etc.
ie. if you have a history degree, a fine arts degree, or psychology degree, there is a very small group that go on to become Teachers of that.. or obtain a decent
job related to what they studied. In most instances you incur a large debt that does not translate into any better job prospects that if you went directly into the workforce.
So don't go to university unless you have a decent chance of earning a lot more than if you just went straight into the workforce. End of talk.
I have two boys, and the talk would be different if I had girls.
It is currently true that more women are enrolled in post secondary education than men.
2021/22 reveals women represent 55% of college and institute enrolment and nearly 60% of graduates across various disciplines.
Not sure what the split between STEM and non STEM is but I assume there is a much larger portion of women in non STEM. Here is my logic. Science may be 50/50 for men women, but Computer Science/Engineering and Math are heavily populated by men. My engineering class back 35 years ago was 90% men. Today the grad photo on the walls are more like 70% men. I checked last year.
Now take those in non STEM. They are definitely more weighted to women. Heck, back 35 years ago. I/We had a saying about those women getting a bachelor of Arts in English/French/History/Art history/ fine arts/psychology/(today add any new gender/women's studies) etc... not being smarter or there to get a BA.
We said that they were there to get an Mrs.
To be clear, they were women willing to go into debt or from rich(er) families sent there to meet intelligent smart, hard working men and marry them!
So now you have a large population of women who have degrees (educated) with possibly lots of debt, no better job prospects, (not so bright) and like to sleep with many potential mates in university.
They will swing heavily to pro-abortion and student debt forgiveness. Now group all the women in college/university together, and you get 61/39 voting for Harris.
I think if you take all the women in STEM they would vote 50/50 just like the men in college and the non STEM women in college would be 80/20.
Not saying this is true, just a funny possibility.
It’s a fail if you get a Philosophy degree to become a Philosopher or a Politics degree to become a politician. (Etc etc)
You get those degrees to prove you can solve problems, develop rigorous thought processes and arguments and formulate strategies.
As an outsider, I always ask myself is this true and if it is, what are the possible reasons for it?
More Educated may or may not mean brighter! How is this possible?!?
Getting into college or university used to be a proxy for hard working and intelligent.
Now look at this question from a distance and ask did I get value for money spent getting that degree?
This is what I told my kids when they were going into university. If you are getting a STEM or any degree that gets you into a professional
That's interesting and I never thought of it that way. Business school and econ (male dominated) also very conservative leaning, largely out of self interest for the careers that follow this training.
Still though, if the uneducated/lower IQ are voting in favor of trump, is that really a problem? I argued in earlier posts that they've kinda gotten fked pretty hard in the current order and reindustrialization +harsher controls on illegal immigration is clearly in their economic self interest. Hating on them for that seems juvenile... "just go to college bro" ignores harsh realities of the heritability of IQ, rising costs of post-secondary education, and the fact that not every job can be a glamorous high paying elite job. Even if Biden/Harris did well on illegal immigration as Melk claims (I won't debate the veracity of this because its irrelevant), it wasn't really part of their campaign rhetoric.
unfortunately the masses have lost faith in news and statistics due to the mounting evidence of lies and corruption.
FFS man. This is like exactly my point. You Trump slappies don't care about facts. That's probably why you haven't cited any. And I as I said explicitly I don't think you have any obligation to. I'd quote my last post to you, but just read it again, OK. You can vote however you want. It doesn't mean that you are operating on a different reality. And if you want to use that to vote, that is your prerogative.
I'm an engineer. We deal in facts. Citing a single piece of cherry-picked data? That isn't "facts". You expect people to give Joe and Kamala credit on the border after watching them leave the border open for 3.5 years? Yeah, we the people have good BS detectors. Same for the other issues you cited.
Perception is reality. Referring to illegals as "migrants", not decrying crime (and especially criminals), etc. led to a perception that Joe and Kamala are soft on crime and on illegal immigration. Kamala blew through over $1B on her election bid. She had her chance to sell us on her story. Legacy media tried to sell us Kamala's story and every single Democrat talking point too. People know what they experience.
No, the people were not "stupid" or ill-informed to disregard the cherry-picked stats in that graphic. They were quite sophisticated in rejecting it.
OK, so you've got some source they prosecute 100% shoplifters in TX. Great, let's see it. Of course, you don't because you don't do "facts" or "sources". Also because it's not actually true. But I'm sure it feels true to you! And isn't that really what's important after all.
There is no Gascon anywhere in Texas coddling criminals.
I think in all this back and forth, you're really missing the point
I'm not missing the point. You're missing the point. Expecting people to buy cherry-picked data points that don't pass the BS test is a failed political strategy. The people on Kamala'a staff were hired to win the election, not to find ways to blame the voters for not supporting her. They failed at their jobs -- badly.
What I am saying is that Trump voters are generally dumber than Harris voters. There is ample evidence outside of what we've been discussing to show this. If you need citations for any of this, let me know (some of it has already been sourced in my prior posts). It's well-demonstrated that more educated people skew towards Harris, and intelligence is positively (but obviously not perfectly) correlated with education.
That's just foolishness. Kamala and Dems simply have an agenda more focused on that group than on working people.
I live in a nice neighborhood. Crime doesn't affect me the way it does people in a different socio-economic situation. It would be easy for me to be a lib and to pat myself on the back for all the compassion I could tell people I have for illegals and criminals. That sweet, unconstitutional loan "forgiveness", funded by people who either paid the loans or who didn't go to college in the first place would be sweet too. That wouldn't make me smarter.
Still though, if the uneducated/lower IQ are voting in favor of trump, is that really a problem? I argued in earlier posts that they've kinda gotten fked pretty hard in the current order and reindustrialization +harsher controls on illegal immigration is clearly in their economic self interest. Hating on them for that seems juvenile... "just go to college bro" ignores harsh realities of the heritability of IQ, rising costs of post-secondary education, and the fact that not every job can be a gla
Exactly. They voted for Trump because he addressed their concerns, not because they were "too stupid" to vote for Kamala.
For someone who deals in facts, you are very bad at them. Let's have a look.
Citing a single piece of cherry-picked data? That isn't "facts".
Come on dude. First of all it was more than one piece of data. It was multiples pieces in one article. Secondly we both Know that if I produced a second source that said the same thing you're not going to change your mind. Or a third. Am I wrong. If so, let me know and I'll get right on it and we can finish it.
Second, you provided zero substantiation for your claims. You just made up some stuff and when I gave you sourced info to the contrary you say "it's just cherry picking". Ok, in that case, you should be able to find sourced data to the contrary, right. Where is it. You realize this magic box that you're typing this on is connected to a vast amount of human knowledge. It's not that hard.
You expect people to give Joe and Kamala credit on the border after watching them leave the border open for 3.5 years? Yeah, we the people have good BS detectors. Same for the other issues you cited.
WAT? First of all I don't even like Joe and Kamala's border policy, why would I expect anyone to give them credit for it. I think it's terribly inhumane (less so than Orange Man's tho). Secondly, you were the one who said that they finally "cracked down", but it was "too late". I guess no credit for that. That's fine. Then we went on some tangent where we disagree on Trump's roll in killing the bipartisan border security bill and it's clear we were funtctioning in different realities. Again I provided sources for my claims. You, the self-described dealer in facts did not. Big surprise there.
Perception is reality. Referring to illegals as "migrants", not decrying crime (and especially criminals), etc. led to a perception that Joe and Kamala are soft on crime and on illegal immigration. Kamala blew through over $1B on her election bid. She had her chance to sell us on her story. Legacy media tried to sell us Kamala's story and every single Democrat talking point too. People know what they experience.
This has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about.
No, the people were not "stupid" or ill-informed to disregard the cherry-picked stats in that graphic. They were quite sophisticated in rejecting it.
Yes, they were quite sophisticated in saying the stock market went down (however many did that). That's some big brain, 4-D chess.
There is no Gascon anywhere in Texas coddling criminals.
Ah, the dealer in facts fails again. You seem to be claiming that Texas prosecutes 100% of shoplifters. To demonstrate that you would have to have a source that says "Texas prosecutes X% of shoplifters", where X is 100%. Now if you read your quote carefully, it does not say that. I'll wait for you to find it (spoiler alert, you can't because it's not true ... no state prosecutes 100% of shoplifters)
Furthermore, based on the evidence that I linked we see that in California it takes on $950 of theft to be convicted of a felony, where as in Texas you have to steal over 2K. Allowing someone to steal more that twice as much stuff before charging them with a felony is not "coddling". If it's not that, then what is it?
I'm not missing the point. You're missing the point. Expecting people to buy cherry-picked data points that don't pass the BS test is a failed political strategy.
Yes you are missing the point. I'm not talking about strategy at all. How many times do I need to tell you that. We might be at double digits by now.
As an aside, I also love the appeal to the good ol' BS test. If I see a fact that I don't like, I can just claim it doesn't pass my "BS test". Much easier than finding sourced data to support claims. Huge time saver!
he people on Kamala'a staff were hired to win the election, not to find ways to blame the voters for not supporting her. They failed at their jobs -- badly.
I agree with this. Your need to repeatedly say it proves that you are missing my point. It has zero to do with Kamala's strategy or what she should have done. Absolutely nothing.
Again the point is that dumber, less informed voters lean Trump. That's all. Fortunately proving this is like proving the Pythagorean Theorem, there are lots of ways to do it. You didn't like my other methods. Fine. The easiest proof is the one I gave earlier and it's the hardest to deny. Here are some citations again that you won't read.
1. Trump voters are less educated.
Source:
A recent PBS News/NPR/Marist poll found that Donald Trump is leading among voters without a college degree by 10 percentage points. Kamala Harris is leading with college graduates by 21 points.
I can find you more of these if you want. That was just the first hit. There are probably even better sources.
2. Education is correlated with intelligence.
Source:
In a meta-analysis of three quasiexperimental research designs, we found highly consistent evidence that longer educational duration is associated with increased intelligence test scores.
So there you go, Mr. Dealer in Facts. You can just focus on those two and you end up that the inevitable conclusion. You can even ignore everything else.
To further help you, here are some things I am explicitly NOT saying:
1. Trump didn't win or shouldn't have won
2. Kamala's campaign did a good job
3. Trump voters have to use facts like the ones I provided to make their decisions
4. It's a good idea to call Trump voters stupid if you want to win elections
Exactly. They voted for Trump because he addressed their concerns, not because they were "too stupid" to vote for Kamala.
I know the logic isn't strong with you, but you do realize these things aren't mutually exclusive, right?
It's perfectly possible for them to be both dumber/less informed AND for have Trump to have better addressed their concerns.
If it's not clear to you that is possible, I'm not sure how much I can help you. But just take my word for it. It's possible.
As an outsider, I always ask myself is this true and if it is, what are the possible reasons for it?
More Educated may or may not mean brighter! How is this possible?!?
Oh for sure, there are plenty of dumb people who go to college. And plenty of smart people who don't. No argument there. However if you look at large groups, a group of college educated people will generally be more intelligent than a group of non-college educated people. Same would be true if we said high school grad vs not high school grad. Not only should this feel true, but there is data to support (linked in my post responding to Rich Muny above and other studies you could easily find).
Still though, if the uneducated/lower IQ are voting in favor of trump, is that really a problem?
Maybe.
Lack of education/intelligence correlates with lots of other things and it's possible that dumb people may have reason to vote for Trump because of those other things. In that case, it's not really a problem.
On the other hand, it may be a problem because if you're dumb, you might unintentionally be voting against your self-interest (as judged by a reasonable observer, obviously the stupid person would not realize it himself).
Maybe.
Lack of education/intelligence correlates with lots of other things and it's possible that dumb people may have reason to vote for Trump because of those other things. In that case, it's not really a problem.
On the other hand, it may be a problem because if you're dumb, you might unintentionally be voting against your self-interest (as judged by a reasonable observer, obviously the stupid person would not realize it himself).
This post is a piece of art. 10/10
Secondly, you were the one who said that they finally "cracked down", but it was "too late". I guess no credit for that. That's fine.
I see the disconnect now, so I don't have to reply to your wall of text. I can reply to this point. Biden should have issued executive orders (or not rescinded Trump's) much earlier. No, he doesn't get any credit for finally doing his job 3.5 years later because the election was coming.
Then we went on some tangent where we disagree on Trump's roll in killing the bipartisan border security bill and it's clear we were funtctioning in different realities. Again I provided sources for my claims. You, the self-described dealer in facts did not. Big surprise there.
I've been following that bill, and this issue, much longer than you have. Yeah, no one cares about a couple of RINOs and establishment Republicans. And, no one cares how much MSNBC wanted it to pass. We wanted HR 2, which passed the House. We also want what Trump will be doing shortly.
Ah, the dealer in facts fails again. You seem to be claiming that Texas prosecutes 100% of shoplifters. To demonstrate that you would have to have a source that says "Texas prosecutes X% of shoplifters", where X is 100%. Now if you read your quote carefully, it does not say that. I'll wait for you to find it (spoiler alert, you can't because it's not true ... no state prosecutes 100% of shoplifters)
Furthermore, based on the evidence that I linked we see that in California it takes on $950 of theft to be convicted of a felony, where as in Texas you have to steal over 2K. Allowing someone to steal more that twice as much stuff before charging them with a felony is not "coddling". If it's not that, then what is it?
I live in Kentucky and served on a grand jury once. I assure you we prosecute misdemeanor shoplifting. California has been very lax there. You really believe you can steal in Texas as easily as in California? Maybe head down there and try and see?
I see the disconnect now, so I don't have to reply to your wall of text. I can reply to this point. Biden should have issued executive orders (or not rescinded Trump's) much earlier. No, he doesn't get any credit for finally doing his job 3.5 years later because the election was coming.
How does that even make sense? So if he had just not done anything it would have been just as good? It's just not an internally consistent point. Obviously him doing something, even late, has to be better than doing nothing at all.
I've been following that bill, and this issue, much longer than you have. Yeah, no one cares about a couple of RINOs and establishment Republicans. And, no one cares how much MSNBC wanted it to pass. We wanted HR 2, which passed the House. We also want what Trump will be doing shortly.
Like I said, this one isn't much worth discussing. You're in your own imaginary world and you see no reason to provide sources.
I live in Kentucky and served on a grand jury once. I assure you we prosecute misdemeanor shoplifting. California has been very lax there. You really believe you can steal in Texas as easily as in California? Maybe head down there and try and see?
Sigh. You're really big on anecdotes and allergic to facts. The only actually supported facts that have been posted are the Texas law is much more lenient than California's when it comes to felony shoplifting. I'm sure you feel very much that TX is exactly as you imagine. So, of course, you have no reason to seek evidence to support your claims. The facts we're looking for here is what percentage of shoplifters in TX are prosecuted. What percentage do jail time? You claim to be an "engineer" but you see no reason why numbers such as those are essential to proving the claim that you are making. Is this that hard to understand?
Also, if you decided to just spend a few minutes reading stuff, you would learn that a massive percentage of shoplifters are never caught (tons of it is stuff like stealing during self-checkout) and are never prosecuted. So me going down to TX and successfully shoplifting would be easy and prove nothing. Of course, you're very confused about what constitutes proof, so this is not surprising. But trust me, this is would not be proof of anything. We both know if I did it, you wouldn't change your mind.
I assume that by "seeing the disconnect" you finally understand what I'm talking about. It's really simple. Low info and dumber voters lean Trump. There are all sorts or reasons why that might be true. There may or may not be causation. There are reasons why pointing it out might be a bad idea. Doesn't change the underlying fact.
There was probably a less blunt way to put that, but I'm trying to be brief. Also, blunt is often better and less confusing. There was a very specific part of the discussion that each bit was referring to. Maybe I went overboard with that last bit, but if you've been following along, it seems that some are having trouble understanding fairly obvious things.
Also, Emoken, who I was responding to, is someone who I think like to get right to the point (as do I). So that seemed like the best way to go.
