***Official H&F LC Thread***

unfortunately the masses have lost faith in news and statistics due to the mounting evidence of lies and corruption.

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.

There is no Gascon anywhere in Texas coddling criminals.

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.

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.

Very true. Legacy media have failed us completely. They are nothing more than propaganda.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Hey guys. What's up?

No, it didn't. Maybe it did to you, but to the people who care about the border, Biden opening the floodgates by rescinding Trump's EOs and then closing them years later merited him zero credit. Ask around and see how many conservatives credit Biden with anything on the border. And, no, I don't owe you a research paper to tell you that we didn't like the bloated border bill. It's not my fault you take everything you see on MSNBC as gospel.

Similarly, I don't care if you believe California is tougher on shoplifting than Texas. If that's what you want to believe, go for it. I won't stop you. Just know that plenty of us voted for law and order on Nov. 5th.

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
― George Orwell

I find this interesting because as an outsider, if you claim that more intelligent people vote for Kamala, then why did the college educated men split 50/50? This is an important fact to think about.
It implies that there is no correlation between education/intelligence and who you vote for. If you claim that dumb people vote for Trump, and you only look at college educated voters, then this implies that college educated men are dumber than college educated women.

What could account for the 50/50 split in college educated men when the split in college educated women was 62/38?
If the claim was true for more intelligent people vote for Kamala then the men should have also split 62/38.

It is possible that the more educated women voted for Kamala, not because they were more intelligent but because Kamala's policies on abortion and student loan forgiveness were more important to those women?

In all complicated problems there is never one cause (intelligence) creating all of the effect. There are always many, many forces/causes affecting people's ultimate decision.
Just me trying to figure out how and why you guys vote the way you do.

Sexism?

And, yes, Sexism is dumb.

LOL. You can't possibly saying these two things are the same.

1. Biden rescinds Trump's EOs and does nothing.

2. Biden rescinds Trump's EOs and then puts it back in place or otherwise undoes it.

Remember, we're looking at this from your perspective. I dislike Biden's border policy for difference reasons. I'm just accepting your version of of how it went down. But if you think these things are exactly the same, based on everything else you've written, that completely tracks.

I don't watch MSNBC. Maybe a clip someone posts now and then. But don't let that stop your imagination from running wild. What else would you base your beliefs on? Facts?

No one is asking for a research paper. How about a couple of sources to substantiate a single thing you're saying? It's not hard. It takes seconds. For someone who "deals in facts" this seems awfully hard for you.

More excuses. Zero actual facts posted. A+ Excellent work.

I'm beginning to wonder if "deals in facts" means what you thinks it means. Not a lot of dealing going on here.

I don't know much on this topic or how much of an effect sexism plays in that split so I looked up a recent UN Study.

The research checked biases around seven indicators by asking whether or not men make better political leaders; women and men have the same rights; university is more important for men than women; men should have more rights to a job than women; men make better business executives; physical violence by a partner is ever justified; and, finally, whether or not women should be granted full reproductive rights.
According to the findings, published today as part of the Gender Social Norms Index (pdf, p. 8), only 14% of women and 10% of men are free of bias against women.

Astonishing but there is not much difference between men and women. 86% of women are biased against women and 90% of men are also biased against women.
I guess that means 86% and 90% of us are dumb. =(

Yes, there sure is a lot of sexism out there!

However, I'm not sure how much that stuff applies to Presidential candidates. It's very easy for people to think you shouldn't beat a woman or a woman should be able to go to university just like men, but trusting a woman with the highest position in the land is just too much.

Also it probably depends on the populations you ask. Lots of other developed countries have had women presidents or equivalents. That reflects different attitudes and arguably shapes attitudes.

Do you have the link to the full study handy? I think if we separated out the "business executive" part that might be the most relevant. But even that isn't quite the same. I've been in orgs who have an endless supply of worthless VPs of various things. I'm sure they would describe themselves as executives. They have very little power and do very little of value.

Well, it's not binary. There are degrees there is smarter and less smart, dumber and less dumb. A person who is sexist and can't add is dumber than a person who is sexist and can do arithmetic.

I just picked the study at the top of my search.

https://www.undp.org/press-releases/almost-90-men/women-globally-are-biased-against-women

UNDP

Almost 90% of Men/Women Globally Are Biased Against Women

Melk,

I think one of us (and it could be me!) is misunderstanding what feels was saying there.

I like Trump, simple as.

You're going to get so tired of winning Melk. You're going to be rich. Your neighborhood will be safe. CHYna will implode. It's going to be wonderful.

Turns out it's not a Trump presidency that increases the chances, it was just him getting elected and current lame duck period getting wild. Biden just OK'd long distance missile attacks. So WWIII might be starting before Trump even assumes office.