The Next President is...

[slackline]

7 hours ago, DosXX said:

How exactly is that anecdotal? Do you really think I would lack the self awareness to say that without having research to back that up after just criticizing it? 

12 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Yes. 

 

His answer is valid based on the fact that many people on the side of common sense feel that the right (the side pushing the same conspiracy theories Trump pushed after losing the popular vote in 2016) lacks the self awareness to realize they're being played by a president desperate to cling to power and social media news sources because the real journalists out there are just #fakenews.  

They think you lack self awareness, and the rest of the world (authoritarian regimes excluded [I say that because they're basically the only ones to have yet to offer congratulations.  Good company...]) thinks they lack self awareness.

The real reason the rest of the GOP isn't telling the president to stop crying already is because of the run-offs in GA in January.  I'd put money on the thought that if the GOP had won those two races outright, you'd have the rest of the GOP congratulating the Biden camp already.

[SurelySerious]

2 minutes ago, slackline said:

 

His answer is valid based on the fact that many people on the side of common sense feel that the right (the side pushing the same conspiracy theories Trump pushed after losing the popular vote in 2016) lacks the self awareness to realize they're being played by a president desperate to cling to power and social media news sources because the real journalists out there are just #fakenews.  

They think you lack self awareness, and the rest of the world (authoritarian regimes excluded [I say that because they're basically the only ones to have yet to offer congratulations.  Good company...]) thinks they lack self awareness.

The real reason the rest of the GOP isn't telling the president to stop crying already is because of the run-offs in GA in January.  I'd put money on the thought that if the GOP had won those two races outright, you'd have the rest of the GOP congratulating the Biden camp already.

His answer was provided anecdotally after he criticized someone of the same, quit being dramatic one of science and facts. Maybe he should have provided a controlled experiment where this one spreads differently amongst humans with masks than without instead of being so self assuredly arrogant about his knowledge. 

[slackline]

3 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

His answer was provided anecdotally after he criticized someone of the same, quit being dramatic one of science and facts. Maybe he should have provided a controlled experiment where this one spreads differently amongst humans with masks than without instead of being so self assuredly arrogant about his knowledge. 

Not disagreeing with you.  We all get carried away sometimes in what, to our perception in the moment, feels like the other side is ignoring the countless examples provided previously.  

[slackline]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/

Heard this story on "gasp" NPR this morning, so I looked up the report.  For the camp claiming economic superiority, counties in the US that voted for Biden accounted for 70% of the US's economic activity...  The article talks about Trump winning the electoral college last time but the counties won by Clinton (just threw up in my mouth a little even typing her name) had roughly the same economic impact.  

From the ariticle:    

"Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation and misunderstandings." 

This rift is scary.  People in these rural areas (rightly so) worry that people in these metropolitan hubs are deciding how they should live their lives, and the metropolitan areas are completely out of touch with life in the rural areas.  Someone proposed the great idea of breaking DC up and sending govt agencies out across the country.  I love that.  It would help reduce the gap in understanding, and maybe bring us closer to the middle where we belong.  No way to make left and right happy on every issue all the time, but we should be better at compromise...

[gearhog]

Counties do not account for economic activity, people and businesses do. The GDP contribution of a business headquartered in Cook Co, IL has little to do with the unassociated millions of voters who live there. It seems they're trying to make the case that because a big business happens to be located in the same geographic area, the opinions of those who live near it matter more.

Check the Twitter feeds of the authors of the article. They're all politically biased.

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by torqued

[slackline]

2 minutes ago, torqued said:

Counties do not account for economic activity, people and businesses do. The GDP contribution of a business headquartered in Cook Co, IL has little to do with the unassociated millions of voters who live there. It seems they're trying to make the case that because a big business happens to be located in the same geographic area, the opinions of those who live near it matter more.

Check the Twitter feeds of the authors of the article. They're all politically biased.

 

Semantics...

 

So, according to you, someone who has a political bias is incapable of producing anything worth note?  Everyone, everyone has a political bias.  Look at virtually every article posted on here, the author leans one way or another.  Should we disregard everything.  Brookings is reputable.  

[gearhog]

31 minutes ago, slackline said:

Semantics...

 

So, according to you, someone who has a political bias is incapable of producing anything worth note?  Everyone, everyone has a political bias.  Look at virtually every article posted on here, the author leans one way or another.  Should we disregard everything.  Brookings is reputable.  

No, I am saying in this particular instance, political bias is clearly evident in the authors' attempt to make the case that a vote means more if its near higher economic activity.

"Democrats represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports."

"By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement. Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country, but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base."

What locations have problems with housing affordability, homelessness, infrastructure, and racial justice? The same ones the authors are praising for voting blue. What bullshit.

Edited November 12, 2020 by torqued

[Guardian]

Not disagreeing with you.  We all get carried away sometimes in what, to our perception in the moment, feels like the other side is ignoring the countless examples provided previously.  

“Feel” = emotion

[Sim]

1 hour ago, slackline said:

Someone proposed the great idea of breaking DC up and sending govt agencies out across the country.

Trump did that and swamp hated it. https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/politics/usda-employees-relocated-kansas-city-perdue/index.html

Quote

Employees from two Department of Agriculture research agencies stood and turned their backs to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue at an all-hands meeting Thursday to silently protest a decision to relocate the agencies halfway across the country.

Perdue announced earlier Thursday morning that the Economic Research Service, which provides research and statistical analysis for lawmakers, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which allocates federal research funding, will be relocated to Kansas City from Washington, DC, the final announcement in a process that began last year.

The department says the move will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, but many employees view the change as politically driven and a way to disrupt climate research and other work with which their bosses disagree. Both agencies recently voted overwhelmingly to unionize to push back against the move.

 

[Guardian]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/
Heard this story on "gasp" NPR this morning, so I looked up the report.  For the camp claiming economic superiority, counties in the US that voted for Biden accounted for 70% of the US's economic activity...  The article talks about Trump winning the electoral college last time but the counties won by Clinton (just threw up in my mouth a little even typing her name) had roughly the same economic impact.  
From the ariticle:    
"Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation and misunderstandings." 
This rift is scary.  People in these rural areas (rightly so) worry that people in these metropolitan hubs are deciding how they should live their lives, and the metropolitan areas are completely out of touch with life in the rural areas.  Someone proposed the great idea of breaking DC up and sending govt agencies out across the country.  I love that.  It would help reduce the gap in understanding, and maybe bring us closer to the middle where we belong.  No way to make left and right happy on every issue all the time, but we should be better at compromise...

Well the republican sentiment you state above isn’t wrong. There is a large push to make the popular vote the vote that elects the president. Which is scary. I wonder if people who push for that realize what they are asking for.

[Guardian]

Semantics...
 
So, according to you, someone who has a political bias is incapable of producing anything worth note?  Everyone, everyone has a political bias.  Look at virtually every article posted on here, the author leans one way or another.  Should we disregard everything.  Brookings is reputable.  

Semantics why? Why does it not matter specifically in this instance?

[Guardian]

I know someone is going to make fun of Rudy but he has a point regardless of what you think about him.

“Biden crime family” isn’t incorrect based on what has come out

Good chance a crime family will be running the country.

[Negatory]

Can you please stop trying to make some moral comparison or argument that Biden will be a criminal? There is legitimately no evidence of that.

Guardian, it’s hard to listen to you guys, when you basically get fully on board with conspiracy theories with almost no substance, just because they align with your politics. “But they have 500 affidavits!!” (You actually mistakenly said 11,000 here, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt). Have you read any of them? Almost none of them have any impact, and the vast majority are in the “I got a reminder to register to vote after I registered to vote.” A few allege that someone saw multiple signatures were the same. The biggest one was officially - in the justice system - recanted by a postal worker. In total, there is literally no way that they could affect the vote. It was a blowout. 3% margin. Unfortunate, but true. And with these fake votes, the GOP maintained control of the senate. Pretty bad fake voting, if you ask me.

You guys are the same folks that said 5 months ago that the response to COVID was a liberal fraud. A global. Liberal. Fraud. Your ability to disregard aggregate scientific or sociological evidence and put your trust in one or two conflicting opinions is part of why we can’t get on the same page. I recently read a study about conservatives being more likely to overvalue experiential or personal stories, and I literally thought of you. I have spent entirely too much time on this forum.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/conservatives-value-personal-stories-more-than-liberals-do-when-evaluating-scientific-evidence-149132

When it comes down to it, Biden is a super boring politician that has a kid who does drugs. And he’s open about it. It makes the “Hillary-esque” character attacks you guys want to make all the more absurd when you try.

Edited November 12, 2020 by Negatory

[Guardian]

Can you please stop trying to make some moral comparison or argument that Biden will be a criminal? There is legitimately no evidence of that.
Guardian, it’s hard to listen to you guys, when you basically get fully on board with conspiracy theories with almost no substance, just because they align with your politics. “But they have 500 affidavits!!” (You actually mistakenly said 11,000 here, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt). Have you read any of them? Almost none of them have any impact, and the vast majority are in the “I got a reminder to register to vote after I registered to vote.” A few allege that someone saw multiple signatures were the same. The biggest one was officially - in the justice system - recanted by a postal worker. In total, there is literally no way that they could affect the vote. It was a blowout. 3% margin. Unfortunate, but true. And with these fake votes, the GOP maintained control of the senate. Pretty bad fake voting, if you ask me.
You guys are the same folks that said 5 months ago that the response to COVID was a liberal fraud. A global. Liberal. Fraud. Your ability to disregard aggregate scientific or sociological evidence and put your trust in one or two conflicting opinions is part of why we can’t get on the same page. I recently read a study about conservatives being more likely to overvalue experiential or personal stories, and I literally thought of you. I have spent entirely too much time on this forum.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/conservatives-value-personal-stories-more-than-liberals-do-when-evaluating-scientific-evidence-149132
When it comes down to it, Biden is a super boring politician that has a kid who does drugs. And he’s open about it. It makes the “Hillary-esque” character attacks you guys want to make all the more absurd when you try.

The postal worker wasn’t recanted. He was bullied by a federal agent and then someone said he reacted which he immediately came out and said he didn’t recant.

How does pay for play not equate to being a criminal. In Joe Biden’s own words he did that. And then dems later complained for what they claimed was the same thing done by trump (which proved to be a farce).

If someone commits a crime the are guilty of doing that. No amount of jail time doesn’t make them not a criminal. Hunter Biden’s laptop has plenty of info on it showing evidence crimes were committed or strengthening other instances of crimes by those in the Biden family. It doesn’t make it not true just because you refuse to believe it

In the words of Joe Biden, “come on man!”

[Guardian]

Who’s “you guys?” Are you claiming all republicans said it’s a fraud? Or are you taking something out of context and trying to apply it to everyone you disagree with?

Also, stick to the topic at hand. It strengthens your case if you are able to discuss the topic at hand and refute it and not try to bring in other things that have nothing to do with what you are trying to talk about in an effort to make your point. That’s debate logic (science) for you. Not emotion

[Guardian]

Not saying he will be a criminal. Saying he is. That’s different.

[Guardian]

Trust me, I’d much rather have Biden than the ultra liberal left or Kamala. But it seems they are pulling on his reduced mental capacity strings.

[DosXX]

4 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

His answer was provided anecdotally after he criticized someone of the same, quit being dramatic one of science and facts. Maybe he should have provided a controlled experiment where this one spreads differently amongst humans with masks than without instead of being so self assuredly arrogant about his knowledge. 

Interesting definition of anecdotal, I think a more fair criticism would have been if I said I don't need to post anything to know masks work. I also said it was the research that said so in the post before the one you replied to. After all, I was criticizing where he said he "needs no source". I do need sources to know they work, and am open to research that says otherwise to be clear. In fact, the first randomized control trial for mask usage is due to be published soon in Denmark with 6000 participants, if that research says they don't work I'll come on here and say I was wrong about masks. The only reason I didn't post anything was because it seems he's made up his mind no matter what research says. My personal experience/thoughts on the issue are meaningless to the science. But since you're accusing me of being hypocritical here's some research:

Challenging humans with COVID with or without masks is something only Nazi Germany would experiment, but they've done so on animals and shown they work.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa644/5848814

Here is an observational case with no known confirmed cases out of 140 with mask usage in a hair salon.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm?s_cid=mm6928e2_w

At a larger policy scale, here is a natural experiment that controlled for other factors such as social distancing to try to isolate the effect of mask usage.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

Edited November 12, 2020 by DosXX

[slackline]

2 hours ago, Guardian said:

I know someone is going to make fun of Rudy but he has a point regardless of what you think about him.

“Biden crime family” isn’t incorrect based on what has come out

Good chance a crime family will be running the country.
 

https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/oann.pdf

The quoted is a good example of when you can ignore something based on the source.  Not credible or reliable.  Incredibly biased and pushing an agenda.  

 

Edit to add: Oh yeah, also a fair bet that if Rudy is the source you are probably safe to completely ignore it.  What happened to that guy...?  He was the freakin' man in NYC after 9/11.  Guess the stress got to him because he is definitely not credible anymore.

Edited November 12, 2020 by slackline

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

The postal worker wasn’t recanted. He was bullied by a federal agent and then someone said he reacted which he immediately came out and said he didn’t recant.

How does pay for play not equate to being a criminal. In Joe Biden’s own words he did that. And then dems later complained for what they claimed was the same thing done by trump (which proved to be a farce).

If someone commits a crime the are guilty of doing that. No amount of jail time doesn’t make them not a criminal. Hunter Biden’s laptop has plenty of info on it showing evidence crimes were committed or strengthening other instances of crimes by those in the Biden family. It doesn’t make it not true just because you refuse to believe it

In the words of Joe Biden, “come on man!”
 

By “bullied by a federal agent” you mean being reminded that making a false official statement and lying to a federal law enforcement officers are federal crimes? Sure. Do you know that happened for a fact? Of course not, you operate on hearsay. To be considered a criminal one would’ve had to have been charged, convicted by a jury or judge, or plead guilty/Alford plea. Has Biden done any of that? Of course not.

To say someone is guilty before being afforded Due Process goes against the Constitution and the judicial process of this nation. But it fits your narrative right? Is Hunter Biden’s laptop the new Hillary’s emails narrative?

[Guardian]

But what’s the point? Why as an interviewer are you pressuring him to recant (oh by the way the interviewer was a staunch democrat supporter, check his Twitter) and then tell people the guy recanted when he didn’t?

[Guardian]

Facts are facts. Hilliard broke the law. She wasn’t charged. hunter biden broke the law. And it’s not contested he took money from foreign sources for access to his dad. So what’s the problem for you?

[slackline]

2 hours ago, torqued said:

No, I am saying in this particular instance, political bias is clearly evident in the authors' attempt to make the case that a vote means more if its near higher economic activity.

"Democrats represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports."

"By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement. Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country, but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base."

What locations have problems with housing affordability, homelessness, infrastructure, and racial justice? The same ones the authors are praising for voting blue. What bullshit.

Saying a city has more violence, crime, homelessness and racial injustice because it is democratically led is a false correlation.  Simply not accurate, but it's easy to draw that false correlation because most people won't look beyond the surface. From the article:

"Is it reasonable to connect the violence and partisanship?

In short, no.

“I don’t think there’s any data that would allow us to draw a causal conclusion here,” said David Weisburd, executive director of the Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy at George Mason University. “Somehow arguing that Democrats cause crime or something of that sort just doesn’t fit the history of crime prevention in the U.S.” 

If you interpret the claim as referring to Democratic leadership, Weisburd notes that President Bill Clinton had one of the strongest recent administrations in terms of funding the criminal justice system.

But more broadly, linking crime and votes simply doesn’t reflect how crime works. Studies have repeatedly found that urban crime is not a widespread phenomenon — like voting is — but a product of small groups of people in small areas."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/24/fact-check-linking-city-violence-democratic-politics-reach/3248102001/ 

 

Isn't it more likely that urban areas have more of these problems because they have more people?  Every single one of these problems could be due to that fact alone.

[Guardian]

Saying a city has more violence, crime, homelessness and racial injustice because it is democratically led is a false correlation.  Simply not accurate, but it's easy to draw that false correlation because most people won't look beyond the surface. From the article:

"Is it reasonable to connect the violence and partisanship?

In short, no.

“I don’t think there’s any data that would allow us to draw a causal conclusion here,” said David Weisburd, executive director of the Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy at George Mason University. “Somehow arguing that Democrats cause crime or something of that sort just doesn’t fit the history of crime prevention in the U.S.” 

If you interpret the claim as referring to Democratic leadership, Weisburd notes that President Bill Clinton had one of the strongest recent administrations in terms of funding the criminal justice system.

But more broadly, linking crime and votes simply doesn’t reflect how crime works. Studies have repeatedly found that urban crime is not a widespread phenomenon — like voting is — but a product of small groups of people in small areas."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/24/fact-check-linking-city-violence-democratic-politics-reach/3248102001/ 
 
Isn't it more likely that urban areas have more of these problems because they have more people?  Every single one of these problems could be due to that fact alone.

So a place that is governed by ideals leaning more towards one set of ideals doesn’t have results that relate directly back to those ideals?

So if a terrible set of parents raises terrible kids, it’s not their fault and doesn’t have any correlations?

I’m just having a tough time following your argument.

And at the end you ask if it could be due to something else. Doesn’t you asking the question mean that you don’t know the answer and in fact it could be what you claim it isn’t if you don’t know the answer?

[M2]

Honestly, I can't understand why any side wouldn't want to ensure the election was as fair as possible!

Biden is missing out on a perfect opportunity to demonstrate his integrity by joining the call to look at possible irregularities in the voting.   

I don't know if anyone else is followed this, but last month the SSC Tuatara hypercar set a new Guinness world-record speed of 316.11 mph, making it the fastest production car in the world.  However, several individuals noted discrepancies in the online video of the run...

And this is how the owner of SSC--Jarod Shelby (no relation to Carroll Shelby)--responded...

 This, gentlemen, is how you handle controversy!