2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Luciom it's time to give up. You've entered into religion territory for these people and they won't budge.
Or you can’t shoehorn that square peg into that round hole no matter how many times you use Marxist, horror or violence.
Luckbox hit the same wall with crisis actors.
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 co
You and your ilk’s anti-vaccine hysteria got people killed during COVID. According to you that’s all just part of the game, but you need to own the fact that blood is all over your hands.
You and your ilk’s anti-vaccine hysteria got people killed during COVID. According to you that’s all just part of the game, but you need to own the fact that blood is all over your hands.
I never had any hysteria against covid vaccines. I had big problems with mandates.
I am not responsible for what other people do or say.
What i know and that is uncontroversial is that the covid vaccines were available far sooner than everyone would have thought thanks to the Trump administration WARP program, and slashing of regulations.
That, as usual, reducing regulations, saved lives.
I also remember when in the summer of 2020 leftists, including Harris, went on record with big skepticism about "Trump vaccines".
And how they pressured Pfizer to publish results only after the elections, changing the sample needed to get cleared in phase 3 trials to a higher number to delay that publication of results after the vote. That got the vaccine available for the general population delayed some weeks, killing people.
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, d
Not everyone looks at government as being tasked with helping people.
Governing != helping people
You and your ilk’s anti-vaccine hysteria got people killed during COVID. According to you that’s all just part of the game, but you need to own the fact that blood is all over your hands.
Oh wow, we're back to this now. Should we also wear masks when we're in a car alone and defund the police?
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?
Surely you would have cured cancer by now if you'd chosen to do that instead of becoming a fabulously wealthy poker book author.
JNJ vaccine wasn't mRNA based and was approved in the USA.
AstraZeneca covid vaccine wasn't mRNA based either but the Biden admin had to pay off Pfizer for the delay in publishing after the election so they never approved it. This vaccine was also far cheaper.
Grantedly, both the JNJ and AZ vaccines were a tad less efficacious and in the case of AZ had a tad worse side effects (especially in young men), but in a normal rational world they would have all been approved asap for at risk people, mandated would never have happened, and under 40 people wouldn't have vaccinated at much if at all.
But it's disingenous to use the "gene therapy!!! " excuse given non-mRNA-based vaccinations were available.
Btw voting just ended in my region for the regional parliament and the governor (they have far less power that a state legislature and governor in the USA though). We will probably know the results in a few hours, and the exact vote count in 24 hours (while the USA is still counting roflmao).
For governor we had 2 main choices, both backed by coalitions. Inside the coalitions, a lot of choices.
That makes your vote heard far better than the american system. You can vote the leftist candidate but the centrist party in the coalition. Or the same candidate and the party that is allin on green topics. Or the same candidate and the party that is allin on propal topics.
Depending on how much each party gets, they get a different share of political power and they shape decisions more or less withing the winning coalition.
Same applies to elections to the national parliament ofc.
We call it "bipolarism" in politics as opposed to "bipartitism" which is the american model. And ofc at the fringes of both coalitions you can still have yet another political offer, for people who think both coalitions are bad according to their preferences.
Or you can’t shoehorn that square peg into that round hole no matter how many times you use Marxist, horror or violence.
Luckbox hit the same wall with crisis actors.
Why don't you guys point out what's wrong with his numbers instead of just validating his assertion that you're going "lalala can't hear you" because you don't like him? I can't see anything wrong with his logic. If all grads break 55-45 for Harris, STEM grads are going to be less than that no matter how much you dislike his rhetoric. You have to believe that non-STEM grads are less Trumpy than STEM grads to assert otherwise.
Mushy middle still up for grabs. Trump got a higher percentage of vote than the R Senate candidate in every state where there was a US Senate election. Obviously there were plenty of “split tickets” where voters voted for Trump and voted for the D Senate candidate. One being for sure that it was about governing the executive branch and legislative branch. Harris was a terrible candidate and yes far worse than Trump. As bad as Harris was, if she won MI, WI, & PA she wins. They’ve voted together for the same candidate since 1992. Trump always had to win one of those 3 but if you win one you probably win them all. It was close in all 3. Closest Trump came to “flipping” a state that went to Harris was NH. Kelly Ayotte an R that is definitely not a Trump fan won the Governor election by 9% IIRC. Next was NJ. Expanding the map prospects look bleak for Rs IMO. WI, MI, & PA is where the action will be in next POTUS election.
Why don't you guys point out what's wrong with his numbers instead of just validating his assertion that you're going "lalala can't hear you" because you don't like him? I can't see anything wrong with his logic. If all grads break 55-45 for Harris, STEM grads are going to be less than that no matter how much you dislike his rhetoric. You have to believe that non-STEM grads are less Trumpy than STEM grads to assert otherwise.
That’s not it for me. If you want to prove something with statistics, use statistics. Don’t admit you don’t have the numbers and use other numbers to then extrapolate from them using logic. Go parse the data and give us the numbers.
Why don't you guys point out what's wrong with his numbers instead of just validating his assertion that you're going "lalala can't hear you" because you don't like him? I can't see anything wrong with his logic. If all grads break 55-45 for Harris, STEM grads are going to be less than that no matter how much you dislike his rhetoric. You have to believe that non-STEM grads are less Trumpy than STEM grads to assert otherwise.
Because there isn't STEM then all other grades uniformaly.
Unless you have precise data I don't see how you can claim a result with certainty.
i.e what if some non STEM grads are 53/47 or any other number?
Btw I'm not claiming STEM don't skew toward Trump, I'm saying it's not backed up with clear data. (if I remember original claim was : it's undisputable)
That’s not it for me. If you want to prove something with statistics, use statistics. Don’t admit you don’t have the numbers and then extrapolate using logic. Go parse the data and give us the numbers.
He is using statistics with the numbers we have. We know the Harris-Trump split for all grads. We know that non-STEM grads are less Trumpy than STEM grads. That's all the information we need to say "STEM grads are less than 55% Harris".
To quantify exactly how much less than 55%, we'd need to know what % of all grads are STEM and what % of non-STEM grads voted Harris. But he's not quantifying it. He's just saying 55% is the absolute ceiling, which it is. I hate the conclusion, but I accept it is correct unless someone can point out a flaw with the precepts or the reasoning.
The example he gave used toy numbers because I asked him to use toy numbers to illustrate the general point.
Because there isn't STEM then all other grades uniformaly.
Unless you have precise data I don't see how you can claim a result with certainty.
i.e what if some non STEM grads are 53/47 or any other number?
Btw I'm not claiming STEM don't skew toward Trump, I'm saying it's not backed up with clear data. (if I remember original claim was : it's undisputable)
You can argue that non-STEM is more Trumpy than STEM, but that argument is unpersuasive, and there is data ITT contadicting it. If you accept that non-STEM is less Trumpy then STEM, then the conclusion is indisputable, unfortunately.
You can answer this question yourself if you think logically. Let's first make sure you understand the basics: do you know the purpose of wearing a mask? I ask this because a surprisingly large number of people don't.
I was sure given a lot of crap for saying anything could happen in states with abortion on the ballot and including Montana in the list. Of course, some claimed I meant I thought they would vote for Harris, and refused to believe me when I clarified, but what I meant was exactly what actually wound up happening.
Crazy.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/49...
Montana enshrines abortion access into state constitution
Why don't you guys point out what's wrong with his numbers instead of just validating his assertion that you're going "lalala can't hear you" because you don't like him? I can't see anything wrong with his logic. If all grads break 55-45 for Harris, STEM grads are going to be less than that no matter how much you dislike his rhetoric. You have to believe that non-STEM grads are less Trumpy than STEM grads to assert otherwise.
Correction - the last sentence should read "You have to believe that non-STEM grads are more Trumpy than STEM grads to assert otherwise."
He is using statistics with the numbers we have. We know the Harris-Trump split for all grads. We know that non-STEM grads are less Trumpy than STEM grads. That's all the information we need to say "STEM grads are less than 55% Harris".
To quantify exactly how much less than 55%, we'd need to know what % of all grads are STEM and what % of non-STEM grads voted Harris. But he's not quantifying it. He's just saying 55% is the absolute ceiling, which it is. I hate the conclusion, but I accept it is
Sorry, it I am not going to accept Luciom’s explanations at face value. He skews facts and data all the time to meet his political objectives and views. If the data exists and can be tabulated, I want that over Luciom’s logic very day of the week. I am not saying Luciom can’t be right, I just don’t trust the integrity of the guy claiming “trust me” after admitting the data hasn’t been parsed to answer that particular question.
I was sure given a lot of crap for saying anything could happen in states with abortion on the ballot and including Montana in the list. Of course, some claimed I meant I thought they would vote for Harris, and refused to believe me when I clarified, but what I meant was exactly what actually wound up happening.
Crazy.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/49...
Montana enshrines abortion access into state constitution
We actually told you that abortion was a topic where the left had a very very clear polling favour.
You though thought that "abortion being on the ballot" would have meant disaster for republican candidates.
It was the actual opposite: being allowed to vote their coscience about abortion made it EASIER for people to vote republican candidates, while at the same time voting in favor of abortion. 10-15% of the population did that in various red-leaning states.
HAving abortion on the ballot as a separate vote, REDUCES the amount of people who flip party votes because of abortion.
