2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
aye aye aye, this covid discussion. Makes my head hurt.
Jeebus, just move on. It was a once in a lifetime pandemic. Nobody knew anything about it when it hit. People WERE dying. Hospitals were full. Officials had to work with limited information. There was no perfect solution. Geez.
You know, whenever the subject comes up with literally anyone I know, the phrase is always "during covid". Nobody talks about the evil government taking
I would if people didn't claim they are PRO FREEDOM in healthcare issues after what they supported during covid.
You are pro something if in face of great costs, you put that something above the rest and push for it NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES. Otherwise you are not really pro that as a core belief.
Btw in general, the "perfect" (optimal given the circumstances) solution is to err on the side of freedom, for everything, no exception. That means than unless you are absolutely certain about something you don't limit freedom. Unless you are willing to bet your life (your career, your reputation, your everything) that limiting freedom is indispensable, you don't.
You don't even start thinking about limiting freedom if it isn't crystal clear it's IMPOSSIBLE not to. So like for covid the default reasoning shouldn't have been "china locked down so perhaps it's necessary", it should have been "sweden isn't locking down so we are 100% certain it's not indispensable to, so we don't". Erring on the side of freedom is , or should be , the default option, ESPECIALLY in uncertain circumstances, ESPECIALLY if you are panicking.
That is, if you like freedom, if you consider it important.
I would if people didn't claim they are PRO FREEDOM in healthcare issues after what they supported during covid.
You are pro something if in face of great costs, you put that something above the rest and push for it NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES. Otherwise you are not really pro that as a core belief.
Btw in general, the "perfect" (optimal given the circumstances) solution is to err on the side of freedom, for everything, no exception. That mean
meh
Spoiler
I don't understand why some people call Luciom a troll. I don't think he is posting primarily to get a rise out of people. I have no reason to doubt that his posts reflect his actual views.
I am guessing that Luciom is exactly who he appears to be. He went to a university but his income has never depended on a job that required a university degree. He used to play poker seriously. Now he makes whatever money he has off a variety of side
Cuepee
I don't understand why some people call Luciom a troll. I don't think he is posting primarily to get a rise out of people. I have no reason to doubt that his posts reflect his actual views.
I agree his posts reflect his actual views. But, his style of posting is 100% meant to get a rise out of people. I think he see's this as a game. And he's not wrong. We're a bunch of dopes posting about stuff on a small internet forum. Nothing we do here is going to matter in the real world.
I agree his posts reflect his actual views. But, his style of posting is 100% meant to get a rise out of people. I think he see's this as a game. And he's not wrong. We're a bunch of dopes posting about stuff on a small internet forum. Nothing we do here is going to matter in the real world.
It is likely to get a rise out of people, but I have no reason to think that is his primary motivation.
You of course are correct that the real world is indifferent to what is posted on this subforum.
Going to be interesting to see couples where the wife is fiercely pro choice and the other partner is fiercely pro crypto.
They can't both get the right president.
Going to be interesting to see couples where the wife is fiercely pro choice and the other partner is fiercely pro crypto.
They can't both get the right president.
Being fiercely pro-crypto isn't especially conducive to getting married, so this conflict probably won't affect many marriages.
If your prime political focus is being fiercely pro-crypto, you're doing it wrong.
No i think that most people who disagree with me on core value claims do so because they ... have different core values for real.
There are disagreements linked to capacity of understanding reality as it is so i occasionally agree with someone on what we want to accomplish in society, and we disagree about the how, and in those cases when it's me vs amateur like me i usually think it's about people being less obsessed than me about various
I think you have one of (if not) the most fleshed out world views of any poster here. I think you post genuinely in general and are not trolling most of the time.
I also think you purposely ignore data that contradicts your world views.
Its also abundantly clear that you mean "I think freedom for me is more important than anything else in life. I don't particularly care about the freedom of the massive majority of others" which ties in with your moral inequality stance. You don't really give a **** what happens to anyone as long as you can see yourself in the upper tiers of inequality
No i think that most people who disagree with me on core value claims do so because they ... have different core values for real.
There are disagreements linked to capacity of understanding reality as it is so i occasionally agree with someone on what we want to accomplish in society, and we disagree about the how, and in those cases when it's me vs amateur like me i usually think it's about people being less obsessed than me about various
This is an interesting post, but I don't agree with much of it.
I think most people here realize that the world is full of people with conflicting goals.
Also, I wasn't suggesting in my previous post that you thought other people's core values were less authentically held than your own.
The post above very much reflects your belief that you are more intellectually courageous than most people.
Pete Buttigieg vs Fox News
Daily Express: MAGA convinced 'scary and dangerous' Walz is Chinese sleeper agent and are living in fear
Fox News presenters and guests are terrified that Kamala Harris' running mate was 'groomed by the Chinese' as part of an evil long-term plan.
I dont think there can be a better visual representation of the criminal Democratic party and its supporters than hitting Muslim women on the head with "We love Joe" signs. like, if you put that in a TV show it would just be too on point and unrealistic.
I dont think there can be a better visual representation of the criminal Democratic party and its supporters than hitting Muslim women on the head with "We love Joe" signs. like, if you put that in a TV show it would just be too on point and unrealistic.
A better visual representation would be a courtroom sketch of the leader of their party actually being convicted of a crime. Here's one for a reference on what that looks like:
I think you have one of (if not) the most fleshed out world views of any poster here. I think you post genuinely in general and are not trolling most of the time.
I also think you purposely ignore data that contradicts your world views.
Its also abundantly clear that you mean "I think freedom for me is more important than anything else in life. I don't particularly care about the freedom of the massive majority of others" which ties in wi
Bold is false though. I lived lockdowns with minimal personal disruption. I made more money than expected thanks to them as well. -it reservations got the best months in year for quality of the tables for obvious reasons. I lived with a 4k sqmt garden on the hills, working from home 100% even pre covid, comfortable at trading markets and (by luck) i was overweight bonds and utilities and massively underrisked in general. Wife bank teller, she was basking in the sun (that spring was super-hot here) while sometimes randomly clickling skype for business to pretend she was there.
We were the exact household lockdowns were optimized for, the "zoomer" class of people who in some cases even took them as an extended subisidized vacation with minimal problems.
If i went with personal freedom considerations i wouldn't focus on lockdowns too much.
I actually do care about people freedom.
My "inequality is inherently moral" is about what people feel in sports (they LIKE that someone is a lot better than others and wins it all, Phelps INEQUALITY OF MEASURABLE SUCCESS is what makes him great, the hero story, inequality is the essence of what makes sport interesting for people), except generalize it to everything in life where talents, effort, and sometimes luck matter for results.
I love the idea that a single person can own billions he (or his family) made in various ways, and try to shape and mold the world toward his views. That's because the probability of that person being better at deciding *anything* is higher given his success, talents generalizes more than people want to admit. Meta-success skills (planning, force of will when thing go badly, pride in your own possibilities and so on) generalize.
So society is better off if resources are commandeered by people selected by success in the economic sphere than if resources are commandeered by success in the political sphere (where the selection mechanism is horrendous: getting at the top of the political hierarchy selects for horrible traits in human beings, much much much more than economic success).
I could go on but maybe i am tiring you and we are OT as usual
Let them eat cake!
Leading Report
@LeadingReport
·
3h
BREAKING: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s VP, Nicole Shanahan, says they are debating whether to stay in the race or drop out and join forces with Trump in order to prevent a Kamala Harris/Tim Walz presidency.
Video in the tweet
Theory: until Biden was in the race, RFK drew support almost equally from both sides, to the point both sides acted to deny him coverage, participation in debates , sued RFK campaign attempts to be on the ballot and so on.
With Harris, a decent portion of the previously demoralized democrat-leaning population, demoralized enough by Biden for a combination of reasons (but not overall for the politics), moved straight back into the democratic camp.
That's plausibly where Harris got most if not all her extra-support as compared to Biden, RFK and truly undecided voters saying "ok this is enough to go blue this round, Biden is out".
So, now RFK remaining base, as small as it can be, it's quite credibly heavily trump-leaning.
Kamala backing a proposal for unrealized capital gains. RIP
Kamala Harris backs President Biden's 44.6% capital gains tax proposal, the highest in history.
The proposal also includes a 25% tax on unrealized gains for high-net-worth individuals.
Theory: until Biden was in the race, RFK drew support almost equally from both sides, to the point both sides acted to deny him coverage, participation in debates , sued RFK campaign attempts to be on the ballot and so on.
With Harris, a decent portion of the previously demoralized democrat-leaning population, demoralized enough by Biden for a combination of reasons (but not overall for the politics), moved straight back into the democratic
Disagree pretty hard. RFK is drawing the conspiracy and anti-establishment crowd that are probably pretty light on ideological details and those entranced by the name. They can be from both the left and the right but very few are going to be jumping ship for a candidate they will see as very establishment. I think Harris is getting a boost mostly from those who were previously unmotivated to vote at all or were until that point undecided because of the available candidates.
Oh noes, my capital gains.
@NateSilver538
Since RFK is taking more votes from Trump than Harris this is a little bit of a downside risk for Harris.
.
Man the topic was vaccine mandates as proof you aren't pro body autonomy.
There are 2 main reasons to mandate vaccines, paternalism (protection of the person you mandate the vaccine to, the state substitutes the individual because the states "chooses better", for the individual gain at least according to the state opinion) and "the greater good" (the person you mandate the vaccine to doesn't risk much if anything from the disease, but for ot
First of all, I was never in favor of a vaccine mandate, so I want to get that out of the way. I’m not going to argue for the effectiveness of vaccine mandates either. What I was trying to say is that you are making epistemic claims about how people are hypocrites for demanding this or that when we know some other things. I mean I do want to say that none of the way you are phrasing things would be said by a public health official in that way with that certainty. And there are certainly risks associated with covid19 that are not all out death, although quite a few younger people with pre-existing conditions did die.
As far as statements like this “As i said in Bergamo & Madrid in march-april 2020 there were no under40 excess deaths.” I mean it definitely gives the perception that you are cherrypicking statistics.
But, let’s say that there are certain voters who support covid19 vaccine mandates and abortion at the same time. What you are saying is that if they had epistemic access to the particulars of each case, they would agree with you. And vice verse if the anti-mandate, anti-abortion people had epistemic access then they would also agree with you. In that case, we’re not talking about how “oh you can’t support abortion anymore because you’re wrong about vaccine mandates”. We’re talking about people who are misinformed.
It looks like honestly you are attributing bad faith and maliciousness to something that makes no sense to attribute it to. Like look at the timeline again. You said yourself that the vaccine mandates came a year after the vaccine came out, and this was after everything had been pretty much opened up for a year. So why would they try to implement them if they thought there wasn’t some kind of health reason. You said that it was to cover up the lie, but again maybe there is just some epistemic misunderstanding here, and I don’t see why it can’t be on your end.
I don’t have time right now to sift through the timeline and see what data we had at the time, but there isn’t a questioned that the vaccine saved lives and has at least temporary benefits for stopping the spread. And they were projecting even more people to die if widespread adoption goals weren’t met.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article....
so when we’re talking about claims to bodily autonomy but we go down rabbit holes about what info was available to who, it becomes obvious that your black and white framing is completely erroneous. That’s why I wanted to talk about the entire timeline and not just look at one public health proposal.
