2024 ELECTION THREAD

You just invented PTO cash out.

You're right. It is basic political theory. And that's true for a reason. That's why these conversations come up again and again.

Ignoring it or saying it's more complicated than that isn't sophisticated at all, unless you have invented something better.

Many of these issues are pretty simple. Brazil, South Africa, Malaysia and all rich countries guarantee pto.

70% of Americans want that. But we only have 2 parties. Both oppose voters on this. Meanwhile, politicians make millions off their offices.

This is a bad situation and people don't like it, but there is no obvious way to improve things.

Edit: Oh, I see what you are saying about Obama. Yes, he ran on hope and change. While, disappointing in many ways, he gave HC to millions who lacked it. I guess that is one reason he is popular.

I feel like there are better issues to illuminate the uniparty on than PTO.

Maybe. I just try to pick ones that aren't that controversial in a vacuum.

Like 70% or more support it, most other countries have it and it's obviously good to most.

Also, it's a really simple issue. If you use areas like foreign policy to make the case, all kinds of other stuff enters into it and you wind up arguing about just war theory.

Workers get pto y/n.

He was actually only popular compared to politicians post 2005 or so. Healthcare was a number 1 issue for a huge swath of the population and the fact that Obama got crushed in a mid term and politicians who say they wanted to undo Obamcare get elected all the time until maybe just recently blows a huge hole in the importance of PTO or any other "2 simple trick to win elections politicians hate" you might come up with. You can't say my view is not sophisticated because I'm not pretending like I know how to win elections.

The reason why it is hard to predict how the better STEM practitioners voted is that they are being tugged in two different directions. On one hand they think Trump is nasty and often wrong. And that people born with bad ganglia, synapses, or parents deserve a lot of help if needed. On the other hand they think that those who need help (to have a nice life, not not just to survive) because they spent their time watching television, partying and taking drugs, rather than studying like they did, do not deserve that much help, at least not from them.

Notice though that two types of STEM experts don't fit into this category. One would be those who were just a bad miscreants through most of their lives as the people many STEM ers don't have sympathy for. The other would be those STEM ers who chose to get very rich rather than try to cure cancer and now can afford to feel magnanimous even to people who may not "deserve" it. Do we know anyone who fits either of these two descriptions?

It's not that easy to separate the two.

But it's good to see someone take STEM graduates' psychology into account rather than just their intelligence. I wonder how much their views can be attributed to life experience. And if STEM graduates are more likely to have experienced a certain kind of upbringing, how well are they able to understand those who had a different one?

And the next question is: which position is more ethical or helpful?

I work for a major tech company almost eclusively with people that have Electrical Engineering, Cmputer Engineering, and Computer Science degrees. While I'm sure some of them probably voted Trump, not a single one of them has been willing to publicly admit it.

At least in my experience this subgroup of STEM definitely does NOT skew right, and in fact skews hard to the let.

Maybe that's why they won't publicly admit it. If they did, would they be ostracized? "Hard to the left" seems to imply that outsiders aren't welcome.

I think that does have a lot to do with it. I'm sure some voted Trump, but I have no idea how many.

Also apparently I can't type and now it won't let me edit that previous post!

Past 30m

I think he was talking about my comment. I deleted the "hard to the left" sentence that he responded to, so I edited it back in for continuity.

A little bit of both. I've been working with many of them for 10+ years so it's pretty easy to figure our their political leanings and it does come up often enough.

I'm struggling to get past Luciom's point/example. If all grads were 55-45 Harris, and it's hard to assume that non-STEM were less than that (i.e. less than 55 Harris), then STEM had to be less than that. Luckbox' graphic does show that STEM are least left leaning of all the degrees as a additional support for that theory as well. Logic does seem pretty bulletproof, but I'm holding out hope that there is a mistake there somewhere that I'm missing.

Do you think that the women in human resources in your company skew left the same or more than the engineers? That's the relevant question.

It might very well be the case than in IT, in coastal areas, for progressive companies, engineers as well skew left. Very plausible that stem there is -40 for trump while the rest is -70.

Then though you have shale oil workers with a degree though, where do you think they skew? Defense contractors? Mining companies? To a lesser extent, construction workers with a degree? Finance?

Think of all those companies and think the types with the math-related degrees vs the company psychologist, DEI department if it exists, human resources, administrative offices, accountants, marketing.

This is amazing to see someone trying to justify anything skewing logic like you do.
By your own words you don't have the data and it's just a hunch.

Everyday you come up as more shallow than the previous one.

No, You’ll just end up on a ventilator in the ICU, and then eventually dead instead of alive. But at least you didn’t give into the liberal hysteria and get vaccinated! Way to pwn the libz!!! Go FoxNews! Go RFK! Go Luciom! Show the world how smart and principled you are by dying an easily preventable death!

We have data on women engaging in STEM relatively less than other degrees.

We have data on women voting democrats more than men.

We have data among professors for various disciplines, with non-STEM skewing democrat dramatically more than STEM.

We have data (from 2016) about professions, with several (not all) professions that require a college degree in STEM disciplines skewing right.

The hunch is about the quantitative estimate, but it's a virtual certainty that STEM skews to the right of the rest of college degree holders. How much, we don't know.

It is obvious 101 logic, the kind normal people get immediatly and leftists fail to recognize because it goes against their priors.

I think you'll find you get more buy-in if you had just kept that one post with the examples to the numbers without the superfluous commentary. I know it's hard for you to type out 3 whole sentences without mentioning the horrors of Marxism and radical leftism, but you also have to recognise that, while your numbers are sound, it makes your whole case seem like it lacks objectivity to the casual reader.

Or it makes it clear that leftists can't discuss claims about reality when they dislike the claimant or the tone, which is the "reddest of red flags" , a clear example of complete anti-intellectualism, a rejection of all logical debate rules and of real conversation.

If you aren't capable of discussing a claim as it is without being triggered by tone or additional commentary, by the corollaries of the claim, you are intellectually inferior to those who can.

And you are also anti-science at it's core, anti a pursuit of truth regardless of if you like the implications of it.

A claim DOES NOT CHANGE IN VALIDITY depending on who is making it. Not being able to internalize that permanently is a massive leak that makes someone incapable of logical reasoning in general.

Since when is it anti-intellectualism to point out Luciom is completely full of ****?

Wow, I'm sold.
Thanks for clarifying.
A+ work luciam