2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Russia did not collude with the Trump campaign in any meaningful way. The results of the 2016 elections were not rigged. Russia did attempt to influence the results of the 2016 election. There are many examples of powerful countries, including the U.S., doing various things to influence foreign elections.
Anyone who describes Russia's behavior as everything or nothing is just being dishonest.
well stated
Odds on polymarket still a pure coin flip, even if various models are slowly increasing Harris chances.
Money making opportunity, or betting market know something models aren't capturing?
Keep in mind that there will still bets for Trump to win after he already lost the election in 2020.
My view is that betting markets have the opposite inflationary effect as polling does. Most polls likely inflate the support for the Democrat against Trump and most betting markets probably inflate the line on bets for Trump.
I think this is partially due to Trump supporters being more likely to place bets on Trump than Harris supporters, and then smart money that is nihilistic to politics placing bets on Harris to win due to favorable factors for her winning the election counteracting that inflationary effect.
Keep in mind that there will still bets for Trump to win after he already lost the election in 2020.
My view is that betting markets have the opposite inflationary effect as polling does. Most polls likely inflate the support for the Democrat against Trump and most betting markets probably inflate the line on bets for Trump.
I think this is partially due to Trump supporters being more likely to place bets on Trump than Harris supporters, and
Betting markets aligned with well crafted models more until 7-10 days ago though.
I'm not whatabouting. I'm saying there's a slippery slope between misinformation and free speech. Your campaign gets hacked? Secure it better. A backdoor is found into an election system? Close the backdoor. I'm not saying what Russia did was completely legal, but what was effective was largely fair game in the existential game of geopolitics. Again, I'm not whatabouting. I'm saying that states influencing foreign populations through misinf
It’s good that you do believe that Russian propaganda— if you don’t want to call it interference— is at least a factor, in the sense that you acknowledge that it is happening and we should try to address whatever issue it is causing. But now I think you are playing both sides of the issue. At the same time that you accept my epistemic claims, when before it seemed like you rejected those issues or at least downplayed them, you also talk about various things you can do to shore up the issues that I’m talking about.
Absolutely these things are not hard to respond to, even if the lack of foresight that it would happen is problematic. Indeed, if you have backdoors, close them. If you have hacks on a major presidential campaign, future presidential campaigns should secure their data.
But we also have people that say any of those issues don’t actually exist, or aren’t impactful. I might agree with you that the net impact of Russian disinformation isn’t enough to change the results of the election, because despite how close it is we can’t get a counterfactual of how much that was Russian disinformation and cyberwarfare and how much that was Clinton’s poor campaign strategy. However we shouldn’t purely judge the severity of an action simply by its impact.
But let’s not forget that what I’m doing is talking about how AIPAC and Russian interference is not morally equivalent at all. And let’s not lose the forest for the trees here. It’s hilarious that Israel gets painted as some nefarious influence, even when it’s our own citizens advocating for them, while the influence of Russia is completely downplayed, while they want to destroy American hegemony by attacking global stability. Meanwhile what does the Israel lobby advocate for? The inclusion of Israel in America’s alliance and the defense of Israel against its enemies in the region, oftentimes America’s preexisting enemies. Not only is the method a false equivalence, because we’re talking about Americans going through the constitutionally affirmed channels versus foreign actors trying to manipulate us with cyberwarfare, but the notion that we should just analyze who is trying to influence us rather than looking at if our goals are aligned or even fundamentally opposed and if they want to hurt us is the complete wrong approach to me.
As far as the “let” part, I’m talking about people who think we should do absolutely nothing about it, not more reasonable people like you that are open to fixing the issues.
I also think, to be more critical of your response, that the idea that a free and fair society would not be affected by this stuff is probably the most dangerous notion you have presented so far. We can’t just let foreign actors that want to see us destroyed or damaged do whatever they want because it shouldn’t matter in an ideal society. It’s very naive to think that we shouldn’t take national security seriously because in a more educated society it wouldn’t be a problem. Guess what, we don’t respond to things based on what the ideal society looks like. This type of moral relativism is contradictory anyway because in that case people should absolutely see different countries in different lights based on how they treat us.
It’s good that you do believe that Russian propaganda— if you don’t want to call it interference— is at least a factor, in the sense that you acknowledge that it is happening and we should try to address whatever issue it is causing. But now I think you are playing both sides of the issue. At the same time that you accept my epistemic claims, when before it seemed like you rejected those issues or at least downplayed
I'm not downplaying what Russia did. I'm saying that it's common practice in geopolitics. Russia just happens to be more nefarious. I'm, by no means, a moral relativist. I'm more of an absolutist, saying that: if Russia shouldn't be allowed to persuade foreign citizens to decide who leads them, we shouldn't practice those strategies ourselves. That such strategies are necessary in spreading democracy that we will have to find an acceptable degree of accepting that our enemies will also use those tactics and it's America's jobt o be better at it.
As for AIPAC, I think you're being a bit naive. In practice, AIPAC demands loyalty to Israel, as is their right as an advocacy group. This is inherently antithetical to the interests of the United States, no matter what the country, but especially a country so belligerent as Israel. Osama bin Laden didn't attack this country because women show their tits. He attacked this country because of its relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia. He didn't attack centers of sin like Vegas or New Orleans or Hollywood. He attacked the financial and political centers for that reason.
Our relationship with Israel isn't without merit, altogether, but it's a net-negative, and AIPAC is actively working to further this negative relationship that makes America less safe. Washington should take national security more seriously and start placing conditions on our relationship with Israel, as it does with every other country in the world. Conditions which AIPAC actively and successfully fight with every ounce of capital at their disposal. Is this an interference in our democracy? No, it's a part of the process. An ugly one. A dangerous one.
BOOM for the first time in almost 2 years, "270 to Win" has the Dem ahead of the GOP in the presidential race. For most of this election cycle the electoral college map on 270 to Win hadn't change with then using the map from the 2020 presidential result and removing 6 states from Biden and making them toss up states instead. But now with Harris replacing Biden for the Dem side, the map has changed a couple of times. MN has been given to Harris and Georgia and now North Carolina have been made toss ups instead of likely Trump.
I would say a coordinated effort to try to influence election outcomes using cyberattacks, fake news, targeted propaganda campaigns, and no AI botnets is something we should be concerned with and try to prevent. I guess because you identify other problems in the world (pretty slipper false equivocations but still we’ll let it slide) that we should just let a sanctioned country in the midst of a violent annexation attempt who had just
It should also worry you all when there was a presidential campaigns who knew of these attacks and interference, welcomed them and expected to benefit from them. Then later they deny that the interference occurred.
Which are the conclusions of your own bipartisan congressional investigations on the issue.
Then after winning the election it culminates with the the former candidate and now American president standing on stage in Helsinki in 2018, declaring his support for the head of state from the attacking nation and stating that the attacks never occurred.
It is one of the most pathetic displays of weakness in the history of American foreign policy. It was an invitation to foreign nations to meddle in your internal affairs as much as they want, and you're paying the price for this today.
It should also worry you all when there was a presidential campaigns who knew of these attacks and interference, welcomed them and expected to benefit from them. Then later they deny that the interference occurred.
Which are the conclusions of your own bipartisan congressional investigations on the issue.
Then after winning the election it culminates with the the former candidate and now American president standing on stage in Helsinki in 20
Which is more of a Trump problem than a Russia problem
Our relationship with Israel isn't without merit, altogether, but it's a net-negative, and AIPAC is actively working to further this negative relationship that makes America less safe. Washington should take national security more seriously and start placing conditions on our relationship with Israel, as it does with every other country in the world. Conditions which AIPAC actively and successfully fight with every ounce of capital at thei
It is definitely not correct that the US exclusively places no conditions on Israel, and hold the rest of its allies to some higher moral standard. If anything, it is mostly the opposite.
Have you looked at what Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been up to the last 50 years? These are all supposedly are allies and we consistently look the other way for geopolitical reasons when they do horrible ****. Pakistan literally just kicked out 2 million ethnic Afghanis out of the country. Just came in with bulldozers, destroyed their villages, and told them to start walking and not stop until they crossed the border. 2 million ****ing people. More people than live in Gaza. And not a peep from the US.
I mean, if you want to argue the juice isn't worth the squeeze, that is fine. But this idea Israel is exclusively some horrible actor we unconditionally support because of evil Jew money is just not rooted in reality.
The reality is we are much more judgmental of Israel than all our other "allies" in this part of the world, because we see them as fellow first worlders and hold them to higher standards of behavior AND there is geopolitical reasons to support virulent Muslim antisemitism. There is like 1 billion Muslims in the world and only 15 million Jews; so there are political costs to standing up to Muslim antisemetism, even though it is morally correct.
Russia is currently at war with liberal democracies through hybrid warfare and intelligence operations, with "western" democracies being the main target.
Western countries are merely afraid to bring it up, because it might make Russia angry.
Russia is currently at war with liberal democracies through hybrid warfare and intelligence operations, with "western" democracies being the main target.
Western countries are merely afraid to bring it up, because it might make Russia angry.
Russia has the GDP of Spain, terrible demographic problems, a war which is depleting their human and financial resources massively, and a stock of natural resources which is inexorably going down in value in the long term because of significant changes to the world economy.
They are a dying state with very little power to influence a group of countries with an order of magnitude or more resources and actual power.
Whatever russia attempts can work only because it's actually citizens of western countries agreeing with some (or many?) of Russia geopolitical goals.
There is no "hybrid warfare". Western countries made mistakes, Europe in particular made insane mistakes with immigration, that decreased the quality of life of Europeans, and Russia does nothing more than helping the many people damaged by wrong choices coalesce.
The solution to neutralize russia is to stop doing wrong things that decrease the quality of life of Europeans.
Like you know, stop accepting any immigrant that isn't a fit for our economies, deporting all those who aren't (an immigrant being unemployed for more than a couple of months is a paradox, why does he still have a right to live here???) , stop the green socialism nonsense.
Russia has no power to change significant amount of minds in Europe (and so, has no power to affect our political processes).
But if governments keep insisting on destroying quality of life of citizens they shouldn't be surprised if enemies exploit the absolutely reasonable dissent that grows inside our countries
It is definitely not correct that the US exclusively places no conditions on Israel, and hold the rest of its allies to some higher moral standard. If anything, it is mostly the opposite.
Have you looked at what Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been up to the last 50 years? These are all supposedly are allies and we consistently look the other way for geopolitical reasons when they do horrible ****. Pakistan literally just kicked ou
I said that wrong in the wee hours of the morning. I didn't mean every single other country in the world. I meant "every other" like "I think Dr. Pepper every other day of the week". I also don't support aiding any Islamic states, FWIW. This isn't antisemitism talking. It's my atheism talking.
I'm not downplaying what Russia did. I'm saying that it's common practice in geopolitics. Russia just happens to be more nefarious. I'm, by no means, a moral relativist. I'm more of an absolutist, saying that: if Russia shouldn't be allowed to persuade foreign citizens to decide who leads them, we shouldn't practice those strategies ourselves. That such strategies are necessary in spreading democracy that we will have to find an acceptable
Every powerful country in the world operates according to a double standard on this sort of issue.
FWIW, I never expected evidence of explicit collusion to emerge. I held that view not because I had any confidence in the judgment or ethics of the people around Trump, but rather because it seemed obvious that Putin could accomplish most of his objectives without attempting the risky step of explicit collusion.
FWIW Pakistan isn't an Islamist state. As far as Muslim majority countries go, they are fairly progressives. Not in any absolute sense, but the bar is very, very low. For example women are allowed to hold public office, which you dont see in Islamist states like "Palestine" where women cant even walk in public unattended, much less take place in public life.
Pakistan, culturally and legally, doesn't have many liberal values and behaves horribly often; but that isn't because they are Islamist.
Pakistan LEADERSS are fairly secular, in a sense they are similar to Egypt in that.
The elite don't represent their populations particularly well though, in the sense that any poll conducted in those countries would show the people are (far) more religiously conservative than their leaders.
The Pakistani government is more autocratic and militaristic than it is theocratic.
The whole Russia thing could have been a big nothingburger if Trump wasn't the narcissist he is.
As far as I could tell, he wasn't involved at all but instead of making it clear that he wouldn't put up with any nonsense from Russia, he made it all about him.
The whole Russia thing could have been a big nothingburger if Trump wasn't the narcissist he is.
As far as I could tell, he wasn't involved at all but instead of making it clear that he wouldn't put up with any nonsense from Russia, he made it all about him.
Well, he does have business interests in Russia he doesn't want to compromise by throwing Putin under the bus. Also, as we are seeing with all the dictators of the world lending support to Maduro, even without explicit collusion, dictators and would be dictators like Trump reflexively support each other; as they perceive democracy as a wild fire that can spread if it isn't smothered wherever it pops up.
Every powerful country in the world operates according to a double standard on this sort of issue.
FWIW, I never expected evidence of explicit collusion to emerge. I held that view not because I had any confidence in the judgment or ethics of the people around Trump, but rather because it seemed obvious that Putin could accomplish most of his objectives without attempting the risky step of explicit collusion.
I buy this
FWIW Pakistan isn't an Islamist state. As far as Muslim majority countries go, they are fairly progressives. Not in any absolute sense, but the bar is very, very low. For example women are allowed to hold public office, which you dont see in Islamist states like "Palestine" where women cant even walk in public unattended, much less take place in public life.
Pakistan, culturally and legally, doesn't have many liberal values and behaves
Yeah, I throw the term around loosely because my standards are very different. Being largely Muslims coupled with a long history of providing safe haven to Islamic terrorists (AQ, LeT, JuD, MHD) is pretty extreme. Do they share the "values" of Iran and other terror states? No, I'l concede that, but they sure do cozy up to those who do in a pretty explicit manner.
That said, there's a difference between the Pakistani elected state apparatus and the ISI. If you're saying the elected statespeople are acceptable, I can buy this to a degree, but the ISI wags the dog where it matters to the rest of the world.
JD Vance caught saying some more unbelievably stupid things. Hes like 0/5 on saying things not detrimentally dumb. Just can't take his foot out of his mouth for 5 seconds
.... dictators and would be dictators like Trump reflexively support each other; as they perceive democracy as a wild fire that can spread if it isn't smothered wherever it pops up.
Of all the dictators and "would be dictators like trump" how many wants to do each of the following :
cut taxes?
more election security?
to get rid of gov't red tape (such as stopping some of the green energy initiative which has forced extra costs on consumers)?
reduce the power of the courts to go after political figures?
reduce funding from gov't sponsored education and encourage private education?
strengthen private businesses?
Of all the dictators and "would be dictators like trump" how many wants to do each of the following :
cut taxes? on the rich, screw everyone else
more election security? you mean voter suppression
to get rid of gov't red tape (such as stopping some of the green energy initiative which has forced extra costs on consumers)? burn the planet down I say
reduce the power of the courts to go after political figures?
.
Pakistan LEADERSS are fairly secular, in a sense they are similar to Egypt in that.
The elite don't represent their populations particularly well though, in the sense that any poll conducted in those countries would show the people are (far) more religiously conservative than their leaders.
Stay on topic please
I was responding to a post comparing trump to dictators and I was pointing out how some of his policies do the exact opposite of most dictators' policies. So your opinion on if these policies are good or bad isn't super relevant.
If you'd like you can go back and say which of these policies that trump supports are common from actual dictators though.
Of all the dictators and "would be dictators like trump" how many wants to do each of the following :
cut taxes?
more election security?
to get rid of gov't red tape (such as stopping some of the green energy initiative which has forced extra costs on consumers)?
reduce the power of the courts to go after political figures?
reduce funding from gov't sponsored education and encourage private education?
strengthen private businesses?
I'm no world history buff, but wouldn't a present-day Mussolini do some of these things?
I'm not being passive-aggressive. I'm genuinely asking.
