|
Post by scooter on Aug 25, 2024 16:38:13 GMT -5
Maybe it leads to conclusions you don’t like? Not really interested in being ambiguous or coy about whether the United States should elect... These two comments make my point for me. When I look at data and say what the race looks like (in response to comments containing predictions about what direction the race is trending), some of you assume that means something about what conclusion I like or what I think the result should be, and then pursue the rest of the conversation from an advocacy-first perspective where the "analysis" is mostly what you like or what you think should happen. Advocacy is fine for its own sake (and I get why people on both sides want to drive "energy" toward their candidate), but it's not what I'm here for, and when my analysis is treated as advocacy (which it is not; my advocacy is toward a third party candidate who has never been mentioned here, using my non-swing-state vote to signal the parties as to what direction I want to see them shift) and that drives personal hostility toward me, that tells me this is a useless conversation for me to be in. I meant no antipathy and respect your views and choices. There may very well be a 3rd party candidate with which I largely agree — and is not a detestable human being — and whose platform should get more consideration than it will by the general public. I simply made a decision to be open about my thinking about the two candidates who have a chance to be the next President.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Aug 25, 2024 18:34:45 GMT -5
Maybe it leads to conclusions you don’t like? Not really interested in being ambiguous or coy about whether the United States should elect... These two comments make my point for me. When I look at data and say what the race looks like (in response to comments containing predictions about what direction the race is trending), some of you assume that means something about what conclusion I like or what I think the result should be, and then pursue the rest of the conversation from an advocacy-first perspective where the "analysis" is mostly what you like or what you think should happen. Advocacy is fine for its own sake (and I get why people on both sides want to drive "energy" toward their candidate), but it's not what I'm here for, and when my analysis is treated as advocacy (which it is not; my advocacy is toward a third party candidate who has never been mentioned here, using my non-swing-state vote to signal the parties as to what direction I want to see them shift) and that drives personal hostility toward me, that tells me this is a useless conversation for me to be in. You don’t have to be defensive about whoever you choose to support. I applaud open, civil, discussion. Which, IMO, this has largely been. But I live in the real world where I know any “message” I wish to send to the two dominant political parties (via my voting 3rd party) won’t be heard. So I choose from the two choices I am presented with who stand a chance of becoming president. To me, the choice is easy. If you feel good about yourself by making your message heard via your 3rd party vote, more power to you.
|
|
|
Post by nuggetshipster on Aug 25, 2024 18:49:35 GMT -5
Ayo GBG, how come you keep talking about posters in nuggets related threads. While at the same time spewing out s**t like this it's the dead off-season time, any activity is good activity at this time. Yeah, fine, just take it to the appropriate thread.
|
|
|
Post by duh88 on Aug 26, 2024 3:13:08 GMT -5
lol - please spare me the "hero" narratives about Harris.
Harris was a side-piece to California's most powerful Democrat of her time, who put her on multiple commissions so she could sustain with 6-figure salaries.
Harris then became DA of San Francisco, primarily because her sugardaddy cleared the field for her - now that said, I can't complain about her work there as SF was a mostly "safe" city under her watch, but I honestly give Gavin Newsom more of that credit, as he basically replicated the Republican Rudy Gialiani/Richard Riordan Mayor model of putting more cops on the street, giving them immunity, and letting them enforce laws - none of which I give credit to Harris for that (of course, that was all undone when Newsom became Governor and enforced the illogical defunding of multiple police agencies - but that's a different convo).
Associates to Harris then rigged the 2012 Attorney General's race of California - whereupon her crowning achievement was refusing to release many men incarcerated under garbage marijuana laws (despite those laws being reversed) because the labor they provided the state was "cheap" - thus, keeping them in incarcerated was somehow the correct move.
Biden would go onto to fumble in 2020, citing that his running mate would be black woman. This immediately boxed Biden in. Now that said - Democrats can't win races unless they get 90% of the black vote - so we're basically living in a period of time where one of the Dem candidates (prez or vp) has to be black. But Biden should have picked Val Demmings - a woman who actually has a 'hero' story of being Chief of Police of Orlando, risking her life daily, and keeping that city safe - ultimately winning so much trust that her hometown city sent her to Congress. I don't like Demmings' views, but in terms of gritty, pull-yourself-by-the-bootstraps - that's the right pick.
But somehow, someway, the starts aligned for Harris instead.
Fast-forward to 2024: The Dems are left with Harris.
To understand her quality as a candidate is to look no further than the fact that since announcing, she has done this many interviews: 0
She has fielded this many questions from reporters: 2
She is inaccessible and not available to give answers to the public.
This is a horrible candidate - and her past history backs it up.
|
|
|
Post by JB on Aug 26, 2024 7:21:12 GMT -5
to quote Napoleon Bonaparte, never interrupt your enemy as he's destroying himself. why would Kamala change the news cycle to her as the Trump campaign was imploding? she definitely needs to do interviews now that RFKjr threw Trump a lifeline.
yeah Bobby, Trump is going to end all wars and challenge the deepstate. what a sap.
|
|
|
Post by LotharBraunBrownBryant on Aug 26, 2024 10:03:47 GMT -5
These two comments make my point for me. When I look at data and say what the race looks like (in response to comments containing predictions about what direction the race is trending), some of you assume that means something about what conclusion I like or what I think the result should be, and then pursue the rest of the conversation from an advocacy-first perspective where the "analysis" is mostly what you like or what you think should happen. Advocacy is fine for its own sake (and I get why people on both sides want to drive "energy" toward their candidate), but it's not what I'm here for, and when my analysis is treated as advocacy (which it is not; my advocacy is toward a third party candidate who has never been mentioned here, using my non-swing-state vote to signal the parties as to what direction I want to see them shift) and that drives personal hostility toward me, that tells me this is a useless conversation for me to be in. You don’t have to be defensive about whoever you choose to support. Again, this is the problem, and why I'm not trying to engage you on the topic any more. What I've given in this thread is analysis about the form the election is taking with regard to the candidates with a realistic chance to win, and what third party candidate I'm voting for isn't relevant to that topic, so I haven't said it. But you seem to have this mental model that doesn't allow for me to simply *analyze*, so you're looking for the angle, and looking for what that says about my inner emotional state ("defensive", "feel good about yourself", etc.) It's discouraging -- not in the "woe is me" sense, but in the "what I'm saying is being heard through a distorted filter" sense.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Aug 26, 2024 11:36:05 GMT -5
You don’t have to be defensive about whoever you choose to support. Again, this is the problem, and why I'm not trying to engage you on the topic any more. What I've given in this thread is analysis about the form the election is taking with regard to the candidates with a realistic chance to win, and what third party candidate I'm voting for isn't relevant to that topic, so I haven't said it. But you seem to have this mental model that doesn't allow for me to simply *analyze*, so you're looking for the angle, and looking for what that says about my inner emotional state ("defensive", "feel good about yourself", etc.) It's discouraging -- not in the "woe is me" sense, but in the "what I'm saying is being heard through a distorted filter" sense. None of us are robots when it comes to this election, or even AI bots. BTW, Meta AI is now out on my FB Instant Messenger, and it is excellent, but I digress. The point is that this election will naturally be interpreted through the lens of anyone’s predisposition or bias toward the major candidates. I try not to be “cute” about it, for lack of a better word, and so will not hide my predisposition. It does NOT prevent me from looking at the analytics or observing the relevant information, or disinformation as the case may be. And there’s plenty of disinformation in this election, partially due to the misuses of AI, such as fake imagery, including one last week that showed Kamala Harris in front of a Communist Party convention, complete with a hammer and sickle banner on the back wall. This is disinformation that needs to be taken into account in evaluating the potential outcome of the election. How many low information voters are swayed by the smearing of Harris as a Communist? Is this a sign of desperation from Trump? He calls his opponents radicals who hate America and are out to destroy it. He has even used the word “vermin” in speeches. Does that help or hurt his election chances? You have to look at the subjective along with the objective and observable, if you wish to be a completely dispassionate and thorough analyst, IMO. I did this during my career, and it helped a lot.
|
|
|
Post by jimijam28 on Aug 26, 2024 11:42:59 GMT -5
oh poor maga crying because she wont do a interview - whatever lol.. looks like chicken s**t trump wont dont do the debate because they wont turn off the mic.... are they scare he will say something nasty (b***h or N-word)
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 26, 2024 12:03:27 GMT -5
Lothar — with all due respect, some of us here are relatively disinterested in thumbnail “analysis” of the race, as we can all find hundreds of pages (along with countless hours of video) of analysis by all manner of commentators, pollsters, polling aggregators, statisticians, prediction modelers, etc.
Some of us here are leery of paralysis by analysis of a two person Presidential race between a decent, mainstream US Presidential candidate, and a candidate who has proven he is 100% interested in using political violence and doesn’t believe in the peaceful transition of power. (It’s not a huge stretch to compare Trump’s hopes/objectives for the 1/6/2021 Capitol riot to the 2/27/1933 German parliament fire that paved the way for the establishment of the Nazi party dictatorship).
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Aug 26, 2024 12:08:33 GMT -5
Kamala will do interviews. This has been an expertly rolled out candidacy run by pros, obviously. David Plouffe, who ran Obama’s 2008 campaign, was tapped by the Harris people to help with this campaign.
They know what they’re doing. The first task was to introduce Harris to the voters, and to quickly define her as a mainstream Democrat, not some wild eyed lefty. It’s why her acceptance speech had hawkish language on foreign policy (I’m a passivist dove, so that doesn’t normally sit well with my predisposition) and patriotic rhetoric. She is trying to define herself as acceptable to mainstream independents and persuadable traditional Republicans in swing states by getting out in front in defining herself, and not allowing Trump campaign to define her.
It’s why the interviews have yet to happen. Her campaign people know that media types would try to get her in an awkward moment with gotcha questions, putting her on the defensive. If she made a gaffe early on, it would go viral and be used by Trump campaign to define her in a distorted way. Why allow that potential problem to crop up so early in a campaign? Hence no interviews.
But interviews are coming, I’m sure. Watch for 60 Minutes season premier, a likely venue for her to take her first interview of campaign. Watch her on other network news shows. Obviously she will never agree to a Fox News interview so early, but she might eventually do town halls, including on Fox News. Trump will have to debate her, either on 9/10 or later. He has no choice.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 26, 2024 12:11:11 GMT -5
And there’s plenty of disinformation in this election, partially due to the misuses of AI, such as fake imagery, including one last week that showed Kamala Harris in front of a Communist Party convention, complete with a hammer and sickle banner on the back wall. This is disinformation that needs to be taken into account in evaluating the potential outcome of the election. How many low information voters are swayed by the smearing of Harris as a Communist? Fear of the German Communist Party was exactly what led to German business leaders opting to support the Nazi party after the 1929 Stock Market crash and resulting Great Depression, which paved the way for the Nazi party to consolidate power and create a dictatorship. The Commie “bit” is on page 1 of a 100 year old right wing playbook.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Aug 26, 2024 12:17:20 GMT -5
Lothar — with all due respect, some of us here are relatively disinterested in thumbnail “analysis” of the race, as we can all find hundreds of pages (along with countless hours of video) of analysis by all manner of commentators, pollsters, polling aggregators, statisticians, prediction modelers, etc. Some of us here are leery of paralysis by analysis of a two person Presidential race between a decent, mainstream US Presidential candidate, and a candidate who has proven he is 100% interested in using political violence and doesn’t believe in the peaceful transition of power. (It’s not a huge stretch to compare Trump’s hopes/objectives for the 1/6/2021 Capitol riot to the 2/27/1933 German parliament fire that paved the way for the establishment of the Nazi party dictatorship). You and I agree on Trump. If it was up to us, Trump would be disqualified from running for president. 57 senators voted to convict him on his second impeachment. A majority, but not the 67 votes needed to expel him from WH and prevent him from running for office again. So here we are, in 2024, with that history, which is a a major black mark on Trump the candidate. Yet he is a candidate who could win, mainly because of our archaic Electoral College system combined with low information and bigoted voters who might have amnesia when it comes to the many, actually countless, Trump violations of rules, norms, laws, and common decency. How people forget is an indictment on their ability to reason and remember how he was. The gravity of the situation is grave. Let’s hope the momentum for Harris runs through November 5th.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Aug 26, 2024 12:18:31 GMT -5
And there’s plenty of disinformation in this election, partially due to the misuses of AI, such as fake imagery, including one last week that showed Kamala Harris in front of a Communist Party convention, complete with a hammer and sickle banner on the back wall. This is disinformation that needs to be taken into account in evaluating the potential outcome of the election. How many low information voters are swayed by the smearing of Harris as a Communist? Fear of the German Communist Party was exactly what led to German business leaders opting to support the Nazi party after the 1929 Stock Market crash and resulting Great Depression, which paved the way for the Nazi party to consolidate power and create a dictatorship. The Commie “bit” is on page 1 of a 100 year old right wing playbook. I didn’t realize that tidbit of history, but thanks for sharing it.
|
|
|
Post by JB on Aug 26, 2024 12:32:40 GMT -5
Kamala's father, Donald J (that has to be uncomfortable for Kamala) Harris is a Marxist-Lennist professor. not a purple-haired birthing persons one, an actual one.
|
|
|
Post by LotharBraunBrownBryant on Aug 26, 2024 12:39:34 GMT -5
some of us here are relatively disinterested in thumbnail “analysis” of the race Sure. In that case, you're not going to find what I'm saying very interesting, and aren't likely to engage with it for what it is (but may try to treat it as something it is not.) Likewise, I'm intensely disinterested in hyping or cheerleading or advocacy surrounding this election (especially when it involves treating my analysis as cheerleading.) I can find advocacy in hundreds of places, from people whose overall values / worldviews / ethical systems I have clarity on, including those who align with me overall and those who align with me only on a few key topics. It's not really productive for me to engage when you don't want my analysis, but do want to turn it into something it's not.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Aug 26, 2024 13:43:25 GMT -5
Kamala's father, Donald J (that has to be uncomfortable for Kamala) Harris is a Marxist-Lennist professor. not a purple-haired birthing persons one, an actual one. That’s an example of disinformation. He’s 86, professor emeritus at Stanford University as a professor specializing in Jamaican economics. Please show me his academic work in Marxism and Leninism that would prove me wrong. BTW, even if he were that, Kamala is far from Marxist. I happen to have met former members of the Chinese Communist Party via my wife who immigrated from there. Most are very much capitalist today. Here is Harris Wiki page. There is a mention of Marx, along with many others such as Keynes and Schumpeter. No mention of Lennin or Soviet Union. Studying Marx does not make one a Marxist… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._HarrisMany Serbians were Communist too. Maybe Jokic’s dad was a party member or believed in it. Does that make Jokic a Commie?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 26, 2024 14:26:07 GMT -5
some of us here are relatively disinterested in thumbnail “analysis” of the race Sure. In that case, you're not going to find what I'm saying very interesting, and aren't likely to engage with it for what it is (but may try to treat it as something it is not.) Likewise, I'm intensely disinterested in hyping or cheerleading or advocacy surrounding this election (especially when it involves treating my analysis as cheerleading.) I can find advocacy in hundreds of places, from people whose overall values / worldviews / ethical systems I have clarity on, including those who align with me overall and those who align with me only on a few key topics. It's not really productive for me to engage when you don't want my analysis, but do want to turn it into something it's not. This seems to have turned into unnecessary hostility. My point of view — which I think is shared by a few here — is what is the point of lots of dispassionate “analysis” when this is an election between good and evil? This isn’t like NBA roster construction or contract discussion or whatnot, all of which is just entertainment. This is good and evil. My grandparents immigrated to the US to flee violent/genocidal anti-semitism by European rulers — it wasn’t entertainment or theoretical or an intellectual “analysis”. It was “run for your life.” I don’t know the depth of Trump’s true feelings about white supremacy but I do know he has echoed Nazi rhetoric when he has talked about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of the country and convinced a hundred million or so Americans that immigrants are the biggest threat to the country, to the American way of life and to American peace and/or prosperity. He has allied himself with fascist elements of the Christian right. He has no regard for democratic norms like fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power, and shows affection toward murderous autocrats like Vladimir Putin. Many people in other democratic countries remain absolutely horrified that the US would elect Trump to be president, and I know very intelligent people overseas that now would not set foot in the US for some of the same reasons I wouldn’t set foot in Russia.
|
|
|
Post by JB on Aug 26, 2024 14:44:09 GMT -5
Kamala's father, Donald J (that has to be uncomfortable for Kamala) Harris is a Marxist-Lennist professor. not a purple-haired birthing persons one, an actual one. That’s an example of disinformation. He’s 86, professor emeritus at Stanford University as a professor specializing in Jamaican economics. Please show me his academic work in Marxism and Leninism that would prove me wrong. BTW, even if he were that, Kamala is far from Marxist. I happen to have met former members of the Chinese Communist Party via my wife who immigrated from there. Most are very much capitalist today. Here is Harris Wiki page. There is a mention of Marx, along with many others such as Keynes and Schumpeter. No mention of Lennin or Soviet Union. Studying Marx does not make one a Marxist… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._HarrisMany Serbians were Communist too. Maybe Jokic’s dad was a party member or believed in it. Does that make Jokic a Commie? sure web.stanford.edu/~dharris/papers/Capital%20Accumulation%20and%20Income%20Distribution.pdfGBG, it's important to remember for third-world leftists like D. Harris, Marxism was incomplete as Marx and Engels were preoccupied with the revolutionary potential of industrially advanced western nations like Germany and Lenin helped square that circle by focusing on poor and colonized nations, like Jamaica for instance. this is not something Kamala should run from as socialism is not a dirty word for young people. her father's story would endear her to Gen-Z and millennials.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Aug 26, 2024 15:04:38 GMT -5
That’s an example of disinformation. He’s 86, professor emeritus at Stanford University as a professor specializing in Jamaican economics. Please show me his academic work in Marxism and Leninism that would prove me wrong. BTW, even if he were that, Kamala is far from Marxist. I happen to have met former members of the Chinese Communist Party via my wife who immigrated from there. Most are very much capitalist today. Here is Harris Wiki page. There is a mention of Marx, along with many others such as Keynes and Schumpeter. No mention of Lennin or Soviet Union. Studying Marx does not make one a Marxist… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._HarrisMany Serbians were Communist too. Maybe Jokic’s dad was a party member or believed in it. Does that make Jokic a Commie? this is not something Kamala should run from as socialism is not a dirty word for young people. her father's story would endear her to Gen-Z and millennials. Thanks for sharing the document. I will not take the time to read the 164 pages, but I’d guess Kamala has read her dad’s work, because she has an open mind and is very intelligent, which is true despite another slur from Trumpists that she isn’t smart. Her mom was a scientist. Pretty smart parents. The nuance here is that Donald J. Harris, in citing Marx, isn’t necessarily embracing Marxism or even being Marxist, but rather doing a complete deep dive into various theories, ranging from Schumpeter’s Austrian school, Keynesian economics, to Marx theory. Nuance gets lost in too many discussions. But as I said, even if he is a Marxist, guilt by association for Kamala is unfair. I hear what you’re saying about socialism not being a dirty word to younger voters and that Kamala shouldn’t run away from the term. But it is an electoral problem if she want older white people in Pennsylvania to vote for her. She’d be best off casting herself as a center-left practical problem solver. She used the word “practical” in her acceptance speech, so that’s what she intends to do.
|
|
|
Post by GBG on Aug 26, 2024 15:35:53 GMT -5
I just read the six page conclusion section to Donald J. Harris academic document from above. It is a difficult read which neither endorses any one theory, nor makes recommendations other than to study history when applying theory at the end. I honestly can’t tell if Harris is a capitalist, non-capitalist, or something else from reading his conclusion. I don’t think Kamala Harris has anything to worry about from her dad’s work here. I don’t see how she could be smeared from it honestly, since her dad wasn’t being ideological, but rather theoretical and academic.
But he definitely studied Marx (among many others), so he’s guilty as charged, lol!
|
|