2024 ELECTION THREAD

My only claim is that you need a lot more to arrive at the general conclusion with "absolute certainty" that masks have no effect than this experiment, and that's even assuming the data is what you say it is.

airborne, for a virus, means transmitted throught the air.

The moisture in the mask would be on the floor otherwise or on other objects lol. Not in the air.

I am talking about effectiveness of masks through the real-life experiment created by differential in mandates. That's a real experiment, because you have othewise very similar groups in very similar settings, one wearing masks all the time, the other never wearing them.

That's exceptionally informative, it is the closest you can get to a lab controlled experiment in the real world. That's also how social sciences which try to analyze reality do all the times to have real world data.

Using differentials in legislation allows to find real world different effects for the introduction , or lack thereof, of the legislation . Think about a place introducing a higher minimum wage than neighbors. That's how you examine what happens in reality with increases in the minimum wage.

Or a place legalizing the contraceptive pill years before a neighrbour country. You look at fertility trends pre and post.

And so on and on.

What you have instead is lab-setting mechanical measurements of virus in the air and other completly useless stuff for real world efficacy.

Do not try to lecture me about something I have a whole degree in and do for a living, simpleton. I'll be explaining this to you, not the other way around. IRPs (infectious respiratory particles) necessarily contain moisture and virus. They travel through the air, and are therefore "airborne." The smaller the moisture droplet is, the longer it stays suspended in air. Larger droplets fall faster, smaller droplets can be suspended in the air for hours and travel long distances.

Hilariously incorrect.

I know. That's exactly what I just told you. Your talk of mandates is irrelevant to the conversation when we were discussing if a person should wear a mask in their car. Surely you see this. If you think I'm going to, or were, argue with you about the effectiveness of mandates, I'm not. So go talk to someone else about that crap and stop interrupting the conversation I was having with someone else about it. Especially with your toddler level understanding of "airborne transmission."

Reminder to ya'all that disagreeing with luciom logic means you are a filthy infected marxist leftist.
In case you forgot.

BIG PROBLEM HERE. D2 was prematurely swayed. Because his original contention was basically if you study STEM your mind will have improved so that you are less likely to vote Trump than if you hadn't.

With that in mind, Luciom's data can be turned against him. To show this, suppose that 70% of men in general vote Trump and 30% of women do. Thus 50% of the population vote Trump. Say that 80% of those who study STEM are men.

Now suppose that if your parents make you learn STEM it will cause a 10% reduction in the chances you will vote Trump as compared to the general population. So if there are 1000 STEM students there will be 200 woman with a 27% chance to vote Trump (54 overall) and 800 men with a 63% chance (504). Out of 1000 STEM students 55.8% figure to vote Trump. The STEM students were more likely than average to do that. BUT that is not what d2 was actually thinking about. He was thinking that STEM training makes you LESS likely to vote Trump. And he could easily be RIGHT about that in spite of Luciom's argument.

Nobody is disputing that a STEM degree makes you less likely too vote Trump than no degree at all. At least I don't think anyone is disputing that. This all started when I threw out a figure of 25% as STEM graduates voting for Trump, e d'a went with a ceiling of 33% and Luciom argued it can't be less than about 45% for the reasons we've already gone over above (45% of all degrees voted for Trump and we can assume that Harris votes are skewed towards non-STEM degrees).

The male-female split is something that Luciom added in to try and bolster the point, but I don't think it's necessary and just causes confusion more than anything else, so long as everyone accepts the premise that non-STEM is less Trumpy than STEM. It's also entirely possible that the male-female argument is fallacious in its own right, but as I say, it's not actually needed for the conclusion above to remain valid.

It's actually better to think it through as much as possible as you have and then see data.

The best use of data being to contradict what we thought. Then we rethink then we seek new data etc etc. That's our best chance of understandign things ressonably correctly or at least realising we don't currently understand.

Male-female split is the strongest reason, not sure what female STEM graduates vote for, I would guess they vote republican a tad more than female non STEM graduates but less than graduated men

I made this point previously, but this pre-supposes that "being a STEM graduate" doesn't override "being male" as a consideration for how people vote. This isn't a valid a priori assumption without more work.

Again, to give an extreme example, if I give you a group of "all STEM graduates who voted Harris", 0% of men in this group voted Trump. "Voted Harris" is a criterion that overrides "being male". Whether and to what extent "having a STEM degree" overrides "being male" is unknown.

Correct. He's undermining the valid point he made by confounding it with an invalid one.

it does allow me to infer that STEM degree holders have voted for Trump more than non-STEM (ie "more female") other degree holders *which was the claim*.

If 100% of STEM degree holders are men, and 100% of psychology degree holders are women, you can bet your net worth that STEM degree holders voted trump more than psychology degree holders. Even at 100:1 odds it's free money.

So after Trump lost I remember all the condemnation of Trump calling for more donations for recounts . Well turns out Kamala is doing the exact same thing yet silence on the left

A billion $$$ and you still ran a deficit

Kamala is calling for donations for recounts? Source?

Pretty sure it was lying about the election being stolen, begging to find more votes for him, the fake elector scheme, and riot that people condemned Trump for. I think everyone was on board with the recounts with the assumption it would convince the morons it wasn't stolen.

No luck there.

https://apnews.com/article/harris-postelection-fundraising-dnc-gaetz-trump-donors-806eeb3b92eced3242aeb29a964ca259

AP News

Kamala Harris raised $1 billion-plus in defeat. She's still sending persistent appeals to donors

not sure the main excuse is recounts, but the Harris campaign is definitely skill asking people for money and this is the democratic equivalent on betting Trump as a winner on polymarket after the 2020 elections

so i'm biking through the alps and my route takes me from austria, briefly into switzerland and then into italy all in a day's ride

in switzerland, there's a tourist shop that sells shirts and hats with the swiss flag on it as well as things like swiss army knives, fondue kits, and swiss chocolate

so i'm looking at all the chocolate, there's at least 100 different kinds - it's a bit overwhelming

so i ask the lady - which here is the most common swiss chocolate

and then, doing her best to channel the fuhrer, she resoutely declares - "these are all swiss chocolates" and looks at me in digust

i then follow up with, yes, but what is the most popular one

and again, she very overtly scowls at me and declares that "All swiss chocolates are popular!" in her best "WE WERE TAKING ORDERS!"

i again pleaded my case and she threw up her hands in disgust and just walked away

lady literally works at a swiss souvenir store right on the border and this was how she reacted to a basic question

Of course .
Freedom bring you to Marxist it seems .

1:35 Mark Shows the actual tweet

Hormones 😀

She was right and that attitude being diffused in the population is a main reason they are 2x richer than northern italy and almost 2.5x richer than italy.

You either start from the viewpoint anything swiss is exceptional and superior to what you get elsewhere or get the **** out of their motherland.

Afterall you are going to pay more for everything there so it's better be really good.

Note: chocolate in my city predates swiss chocolate and is better

The "scorza" is basically the best possible chocolate through all the possible iterations of the universe

Sounds like a skill issue.

This is the email I received.

It seems they are talking about close races in the house or something, but I think it is deceptively worded.

They say donate to The Harris Victory Fund Program.

They lead with a statement that sounds like they are fighting the result. The election was called for Trump. Not Trump won the election. And we are fighting back. Then they vaguely refer to "other races."

Maybe critics are latching on to that.

The sleazy fundraising tactics of the campaign were a big turn off. Not as bad as the way Trump fleeces his supporters, but still unappealing.

Is this really going to contest close races, or to the debt of the campaign?

Did Harris make nonsense claims of widespread voter fraud?