This is such a good piece. A few thoughts from a miscellaneous tech/finance guy that has been thinking about these issues as well:
1) When a society starts to get squeezed economically, some sectors get hit first,
and therefore get motivated first. E.g. Academia and the Media, where as you point out the pay is terrible. Well, that's where all the liberals are. So the liberals get motivated first. In general, all the conservative professionals & ownership class have done well over the past few decades economically and are not politically motivated. I've met plenty of 8 & 9 figure conservatives, and all they want to do is go hang out in Sun Valley etc.
2) Identity is another big driver in the disparity of political motivation. "Boomerism" spoiled the energy of a generation, but Boomerism is not evenly distributed across Identities. If I am Jewish, I grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust, not the warm embrace of post-WWII American prosperity. If I am an Indian or Chinese immigrant, or a Black American, I did not have this spoiling / demotivating Boomer experience growing up. The vast majority of these high motivation identities are Dem.
3) None of these dynamics are necessarily stable. My amateur sense is that in any given society, the left tends to radicalize first. Left people are inherently unhappy (lots of data on this point), and unhappiness is motivating. But, left radicalizing leads to right radicalizing. So, you get a race for the left to consolidate gains before the right can come back from the golf course.
4) So, to your point, if you are on the right, things are going to get worse before they (might) get better. Because until things get worse, you just can't effectively motivate your side. The scary thing for those of us that Just Live Here, is that the farther behind the right falls, the more aggressively it has to fight to catch up. So it gets trapped between either surrendering to the left, or empowering its own radicals & strongmen (perhaps this is the 1920's / 1930's Europe problem - obviously the socialists/communists "shot first").
5) Trump can be interpreted as the most radicalized part of the right, the non-college whites that have spent the last few decades getting hurt and therefore getting motivated, trying to force the elite part of the right to radicalize as well. It didn't work because Trump is a rich guy that doesn't really care and it was easier to just lie and get into twitter fights rather than take serious action against left controlled big institutions.
7) It remains to be seen what happens if and when the right wing elite does get motivated. That is, people like Sean Hannity go from *pretending* they think and care that they're losing the country to actually thinking and caring that they are losing the country. I think they will decide they prefer not fight, and either accept the "New America", or take their money and leave the country. But, TBD.
re: Left being 'inherently unhappy' - I find the 'neurotic level' incredibly high in NYCity especially among females (and if you want to slice it even further Jewish females - it's off the charts). It feels unhealthy being near them; there's no rationality, it's all 'feelings'.
What "didn't work" with Trump? All the stuff he did (tax cuts, regulation rollbacks, border wall) are popular with conservatives. Trump "worked" in the same way any Republican enacting Republican policy "works" for conservatives.
Trump enacted little legislation of consequences outside of the tax cuts. He was successful of changing the tenor of our foreign policy stance, but was not successful at bringing our allies onboard or otherwise crafting a coherent strategy. He ultimately did very little to transform our institutions or bureaucracies.
It will take a more organized and effective person to bring about meaningful change for the "Trump movement". There are candidates out there that can do it, but Trump himself isn't it.
Do you have any data around academia and media being hit first in economic downturns? Repeatedly, analyses of our modern economy find industries affected most include retail, restaurants, travel/tourism, leisure/hospitality, service purveyors, real estate, & manufacturing/warehouse. Are these what you consider unhappy, liberal economic sectors?
As far as energy for political activity, people who believe every pregnancy should go to term are among the most motivated. People who are afraid their children will be turnt by reading the wrong library book, or have their feelings hurt by learning that slavery was central to the founding of the country, are pretty loud; it's not uncommon for their pet issues to be what politicians run on. Didn't Youngkin win Virginia by promising that CRT -- a grad school level topic -- won't be allowed in K-12 schools? GOP candidates don't win office without pretending their religion and right to own guns are continually under threat. Those issues, which stand in for a pols' true goals (minimizing taxes and regulations on their donors), wouldn't resonate unless their base hadn't been trained to see persecution where it doesn't exist.
Rightwing media is, funnily enough, the opposite of a free market endeavor. While squealing about communism, it's a billionaire-sustained propaganda machine organized around stoking rage and panic. The biz model relies on fearful and angry customers tuning in to watch animated alarmists warn them about black criminals, communists, their "religious freedom" being endangered by strangers' sex lives, family planning, and marriages, large black rapists, socialists, China, shadowy Jews, the deep state and the new world order, pedophiles, and especially "they."
The audience for this hype is overstimulated by fear, anger, and wounded entitlement. The "fuck your feelings" gang who deludes themselves it scores points by calling other people "emotional" continuously shits their pants while posting all the outrageous items they lift from the MSM in order to screech "they don't want you to know ____!"
Then they turn up and behave horribly at school board meetings, surround women's reproductive care clinics with hostility, spit on, rip the masks off and worse to random people they come across in public, openly fantasize about mutilating and murdering Pence, Fauci, and every single person trump hired ("only the best!") and fired ("I always said they were terrible!"), or anyone who dares to report a correct vote count, writes a factual article about or attempts to hold trump accountable for crimes, rush to social media to document yet *another* masked driver in a car alone...
And you think liberals are unhappy and more politically motivated? Pound for pound, you'll find more seething, and many more sharpened flagpoles, in GQP households.
>In a democracy, every vote is supposed to be equal. If about half the country supports one side and half the country supports another, you may expect major institutions to either be equally divided, or to try to stay politically neutral.
>Yet Republicans get close to half the votes
They do not.
This is fundamentally very flawed. 48% of Americans are democrats or democratic leaning independents as opposed to 38% identifying as Republicans or republican leaning independents.
So to start off with, an entire tenth of the populace is a massive difference when you are mass marketing. Then we can get into asymmetrical support for the parties by age. It is no secret that the democratic party is much younger than the republican party, and marketers prefer to target populations at the start of their consumption lifespan than at the end of them.
Also democrats are generally closer to empirical reality on issues than Republicans, meaning that supporting republican causes will generally involve intentionally being incorrect
And finally, the essential framing imposed by the first paragraph is wrong: nothing about the allocation of capital or the actions of market actors is "democratic"
"Also democrats are generally closer to empirical reality on issues than Republicans, meaning that supporting republican causes will generally involve intentionally being incorrect"
LOL -- Nothing that the left says on gender or transgender issues, and virtual nothing the left says on crime has the benefit of being empirically true! In fact the truth in areas of gender and crime statistics are thoughtcrime that is liable to get the speaker banned.
If truth were the goal of the left, they wouldn't censor everything they disagree with -- they would engage in debate in the pursuit of truth. But they flee debate and seek censorship, overwhelmingly. In history, the side of censorship has never been the side that puts truth first.
Perhaps this is so, but the active measures to suppress discussion even slightly outside of the left's year zero orthodoxy is indicative of a sinister enterprise.
Seriously - the only people who believe this canard on "censorship" are Faux Noise and LieMax watchers. Many of us do have concerns with the extreme voices - e.g. silly cancel culture - but then some Republicant opens their mouth and we see real problems - killing innocent people by the state, anti women agendas, anti-poor movements, and of course voting rights ...silly fellows who want their lies to be treated like facts are funny but not taking them seriously is not censorship- it is just enjoying a fact based world
Says the guy who uses BS terms like 'Faux Noise', 'Lie Max', 'Republicant', 'anti women', 'anti-poor', ad nauseum. You can catch brain pathogens from consuming too much propaganda, you know... It's like surfing the Net without an antivirus program.
Eh. I don’t have much trouble picking the wheat from the chaff in the right-leaning media. The sanctimonious framing on the left, OTOH... The BS on both sides is completely, laughably, head-shakingly obvious. It’s just that more people really seem to buy the left BS. Sad.
The right is intellectual in its framing, while the left is visceral. Rightists will argue that their ideas are good, but leftists will argue that their ideas are believed by good people (and that anyone who disagrees is outrageously evil.)
Only if you redefine 'fact' to mean 'woke Democrat narrative,' but I suppose they're redefining all sorts of terms ('white supremacist' is a good example; apparently, like the leader of the Proud Boys, they no longer even need to be white).
Boy, are you ever wrong on that issue! As an MD you should know better. But you are a great example of republican dogma - the left is trying to censor "free speech." That is why trump disbanded so many media outlets from his "news conferences." That was why he was so critical of most media. It had to agree with trump or get slandered. So, my belief is that republicans, especially the ultra - right are for censorship - when it comes to books , literature, the media, the body.
How many of those media outlets were silenced? None! The left cancels books and authors whose ideas they disagree with. The right merely wishes to remove explicit pornography and grooming material from the reach of young children
They each have their weak points. I would say that climate denialism has more long-term, material consequences than gender juju, even though for specific people that might be really bad. And I admit that climate change isn't an existential threat. It's just a matter of how much a giant, expensive pain in the butt it will be.
What many "deny" about the climate is that it is a crisis and that anyone can reliably predict it. Few would deny that climate changes but any reasonably intelligent person would certainly recognize that no one, so far, has managed to predict it even 10 years in advance! To spend trillions on fruitless attempts to change a climate that no one knows how to control would be insanity except that it's actually just a way to control voters through hobgoblins and enrich ones friends.
Do you actually believe, Andy, that the world is going to burn up if we don't do something? Do you actually believe that the politicians on your team believe this as they jet around in private planes, buy oceanfront mansions and use more energy than 100 average citizens? Do you actually think they would be calling for open borders knowing that the carbon footprint of the average illegal alien grows enormously once they cross the border? If you do believe that you are, I am afraid, a fool.
I'm much more on the develop cheap nuclear and better storage for renewables, plan Netherlands-like flood protections around port cities, and stop selling subsidized flood insurance for the beachfront mansions you mentioned so that people will go ahead and move away. It seems like ground transportation will mostly electrify itself over the next 25 years and maybe short-haul air transport. My hot take is you won't get the carbon you put into rail back in the US before mid-range electric or hybrid flights get cheap.
Open boarders is a hardcore libertarian idea that I have some sympathy for — as someone with a skillset that wouldn't be hurt too much by it, but the left would do well to can that idea as soon as the current racial moral panic ebbs away.
Well this is the point, isn't it - the people claiming that Global Warming is an existential threat to the "habitability" of Earth then pivot to propose solutions dependent upon an impossible multilateral international regulatory regime and other measures which consist of items on their long term political wish list anyway. They don't say "and that's why we should cut red tape to increase nuclear energy, and in the meantime find engineering solutions to the more acute effects of this phenomenon."
In any event, people on the right are correct to be skeptical. Global Warming only became a front line political issue (it isn't really - most voters don't rank it in the top 10 or so of their concerns) after the 2000 Presidential Election and aftermath when it was suggested that Al Gore would continue his "leadership" by addressing Global Warming (which was not a priority of the Presidential administration in which he actually served).
The Paris Accords aren't impossible. China, for example, has made good progress.
The rest of the world, and the majority of Americans, understand the severity of the climate threats. Only oil companies and the people who believe their propaganda, put out by the politicians, media, and think tanks they own, can even pretend otherwise.
The idea that concern about global warming started with Al Gore's electoral defeat is a theory you came up but failed to test against reality. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House. Do you think homes that have been washed away or burned down are habitable? Have you noticed that's happening more and more, all over the world?
Who, exactly, is calling for "open borders"? Like, specifically, where in a paper or speech is any powerful Democrat suggesting that "open borders" be a plank in the Dem platform?
And do you think carbon footprints are divided up like countries? That people trying to enter the US only have children once they arrive here? Do they also start taking international flights and cruises once they cross the magic line?
> And do you think carbon footprints are divided up like countries? That people trying to enter the US only have children once they arrive here? Do they also start taking international flights and cruises once they cross the magic line?
Well, a big part of open borders is that it increases world GDP. More prosperous people fly more.
"Isn't an existential threat"?? WOW! At this point - before it gets really abd - we have several 100,000 dead every year, and tens of millions of migrants. The increase in overall heat in different countries - including the US - is modeled to show dramatic drops in life expectancy - and remember that COVID-19 pandemic - as forecast in the US' National Intelligence Assessments is because of climate change - just multiply this by 20 - even if we do not have a dimwit in charge for the next one, the death toll will still be huge
Can you point to ANY "modeled" climate predictions over the last 40 years that have been correct? Nothing the climate alarmists have predicted has come true! Why are you so convinced they are right this time? If you employed a stock broker with the record of the climate lobby you would be bankrupt.
Apparently you know of no correct predictions made by the doom and gloom crowd either but that doesn't seem to slow down your irrational faith. Why not read Bjorn Lomberg? He's an intelligent, well spoken critic of both sides of the debate. Interesting you pick out a "lujewarmer" to cancel. His moderate position must scare you and your ilk.
There is no serious debate over whether climate change is happening, none. The only serious debate is over how fast it's happening and how to stop it. All indications are it's happening even faster than scientists predicted a few decades ago. We're in big trouble.
"Big Trouble"?? Well not from climate change which most agree is happening but which is 1. Happening slowly ( about 1 degree C/century) and 2. Mostly seeming to have beneficial effects.
The biggest "trouble" we face is political and social not climate or weather related which is obvious if one follows even basic statistics. Poverty worldwide is falling faster than anytime in history while wealth continues to grow across almost all demographics rich and poor. Food production outside a few isolated segments continues to increase. Droughts, fires, hurricanes and other severe weather are on a slight downward trend over the last 40 years.
Where, exactly, is the climate related trouble?
Most of the measurable warming has been in cold regions of the far N and, to a lesser extent, in the far S and then mostly at night. I don't think the Siberians and Inuit view nightime winter temperatures being a little warmer as "big trouble"! The truth is there is a lot of hysteria around this whole issue that is, so far, completely unjustified. While there may be more crime and poop in the street in San Francisco and other left coast cities for most of humanity life is improving, particularly among the very poor. There is actually lots to cheer about if one doesn't get caught up in the propaganda spewed by our media.
It would be interesting to see how the NASA study was done as it disagrees with much of what I have read about the models grossly overestimating warming. My guess is that they are adjusting the models to close the discrepancies that open up year after year and then claiming these adjusted models closely "predicted" the future climate when they did nothing of the sort. The below study contradicts the NASA study you cited and they can't both be right.
Gistemp, unfortunately, doesn't tell one much. The inherent errors are far to great and outweigh the projected changes. Interesting that they don't want to use UAH satellite temperature records that actually measure the WHOLE planet's temperature multiple times a day. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
How about rising global average temperatures? Polar ice diminishing year on year? These things are easily verified to be happening. Unless you think an institution like NASA is in some great climate hoax.
Existential threat means everyone dies. Half the people on Earth could die — which is pretty unlikely with just climate change — and it's not an existential threat. Unless climate change triggers a nuclear war or something, it probably won't kill everybody — even a bird blue with a 60% fatality rate and as contagious as measles wouldn't do that. It'll probably kill tens or hundreds of millions of people and immiserate even more — although largely in the poor global south — but you do have to balance that against your other priorities. The poor will always exist. Some people will always be f----d. Life will never be fair.
Gods - what a silly statement - this is why pink bois piss people off - it is an act of gloating privilege to write off a a few million dying for the right to drive a gas guzzler. And luckily we live in a world where such statements are increasingly seen as cruel and needless - a better - morally and intellectually- questions would be to ask - how do we generate abundance for all of us!
He wasn't writing it off; he was just pointing out that it isn't an existential threat, which has a fairly concise, widely-agreed-on definition: an existential threat is something with a non-trivial chance of causing the human species to go extinct.
He presumably agrees that the worst case scenarios would be very, very bad, but there's an extremely important distinction between things that are merely very, very bad and things that are existential threats, and we should try not to get the two categories confused.
(Though at the risk of pissing off everyone involved here, I should probably disagree with Andy as well - I'm not sure that nuclear war would be an existential threat either. It would presumably kill millions in the cities that one could expect would be hit, but as far as I know, we just don't have enough nukes to get everyone, and people in the countryside would survive and have a chance at rebuilding civilisation).
They do. Since 2010, the Republicans have had >50% of the House vote share twice, exactly as many times as the Democrats. In the last 20 years, Republicans haven't had less than 43% of total House vote share in any election.
As in, add up all of the votes received by all of the Republican candidates, and then do the same for the Democrat candidates. Republicans have had >50% of that number twice in the last ten years (2014 and 2010). So have Democrats (2018 and 2020, though just barely on that last one).
The Republican House of Representatives won the popular vote in 2016 (at the same time Trump lost time), which suggests a lot of people still vote Republican even though they weren't too fond of Trump then.
He said "of the vote", not of "party identification to pollsters." When it comes to actual elections, the voters are roughly split in half.
In 2020, Democrats won the federal government by a slight majority, while the Republicans won state elections. In 2016, even though didn't win the popular vote, the Republican House of Representatives did.
As to "empirically on the issues", yeah, sure thing. Enjoy your lockdowns of children out of school even though they have a 0.0002% chance of dying of Covid. Enjoy your restrictions that don't work while your blue states simultaneously top the mortality rates.
People who watch Fox News are less informed / more disinformed than people who consume no news.
People who develop attitudes and beliefs by consuming rightwing media other than Fox are even more detached from reality. There's been a fair amount of research on this.
"Personality Type, as well as Politics, Predicts Who Shares Fake News
Highly impulsive people who lean conservative are more likely to share false news stories. They have a desire to create chaos and won’t be deterred by fact-checkers."
"[P]ro-Trump audiences paid the majority of their attention to polarized outlets that have developed recently, many of them only since the 2008 election season."
"Results confirm that conservatives have lower sensitivity than liberals, performing worse at distinguishing truths and falsehoods. This is partially explained by the fact that the most widely shared falsehoods tend to promote conservative positions, while corresponding truths typically favor liberals. The problem is exacerbated by liberals’ tendency to experience bigger improvements in sensitivity than conservatives as the proportion of partisan news increases. These results underscore the importance of reducing the supply of right-leaning misinformation."
This is a very bad post full of cherrypicked info about subgroups; it also ignores nuance.
>"People who watch Fox News are less informed / more disinformed than people who consume no news.
People who develop attitudes and beliefs by consuming rightwing media other than Fox are even more detached from reality. There's been a fair amount of research on this."
'Personality Type, as well as Politics, Predicts Who Shares Fake News
Highly impulsive people who lean conservative are more likely to share false news stories. They have a desire to create chaos and won’t be deterred by fact-checkers.' "
Also from your link: "There was no difference between liberals and conservatives with high levels of conscientiousness."
See this counter evidence as well: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/711133 "In a contrast with previous results, we find no evidence that citizens on the political right are especially likely to endorse false political information."
where exactly do you get that 48% of americans are democrat ? are you out of your mind ? what the hell did you smoke ?
most Aemricans are independent. of the rest is a roughly even split of dems and reps with the current trends since 2015 seeing a shift towards the republican party, or more indeoendents.
If you simply get out of the big blue cities, most of America is either very red or very purple.
HONESTLY, how much of that missing ten percent difference of republicans are people who for one reason or another just have something to lose by publicizing it? Think about it. Not that I think thats a good thing... but people will literally get fired from their profession for such bs as being seen in a trump rally.
Excellent post. I think that you could change each instance of "care more about politics" to "care more about imposing their will on everyone else" and come as close, or closer, to the truth.
While the language of "imposition of will" is a bit of a trap, what is the point of politics if it's not to change the world? I dare say the farmers and workers had to "impose their will" to end Feudalism. Will to power is a central political tenant. What's more interesting is all the evidence that such actions are fundamentally impossible. What I don't know is if that's more true now than when we had Feudalism...if so, a hard row, if not, then hard things happen.
"what is the point of politics if it's not to change the world?" I think that an integral part of English/American political evolution has been to curb the "imposition of will". That's the point of our Constitution, although it's been warped beyond recognition by now. I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative (or a conservative-leaning libertarian), and it's a VERY hard philosophy to follow, since the urge to impose our will on others is so terribly hard to overcome.
This is so funny. Your data is interesting - love the ordinal voter distinction. What is funny is your bland equivalence of positions - "conservative" may have been a position pre-Reagan (when dog whistles on "welfare" proliferated) but post Donald the parties of racism, hate, misogyny and so on really do not have a constituency. The simpler truth is that the "right" is not right any more by any sense of values - it is a morally bankrupt collection of liars (Greene, Gaetz, Hawley, Cruz, ...and on) with most of the "thinkers" (Hoover, Cato, Heritage, Mercatus - with a couple of exceptions) being whiny corporate shills. Your bland comment on "National Review suggests limiting voting" as if that is a reasonable position that should be engaged with in a 21st century democracy is amazing - your unwillingness to count the Jan6th insurrection as "conservative protest" shows a hypocrisy when you are digging up a tiny pro gun march! Sigh- read you because I like Tyler Cowen often but if this is the best you guys have - good luck - your grrymandering is only getting you so far. And your stats on health etc are funny - lots of data to the contrary - but they are by academics and researchers so you are better off looking at facebook
First - am elite by any definition of the term. And happy about it. Not sure when elite became a bad word - ah - when you would rather be unkind than thoughtful, rather recite talking points than reflect, and rather blame than reflect- sorry, not sorry
Umm...no. Maybe you have a credential or possibly some money? But if you are intending to use elite non-sarcastically, it's not typically going to be an elite that gets suckered into talking points the way you apparently have, or uses terms like "republicants" or "libtards".
“Elite” became a bad word when the supposed elites began the process of owning the rest of us. And BTW, considering yourself “elite” doesn’t make you one anymore than a man considering himself a woman.
I think that derisive coined terms "dog whistles" directly says bias. Even Bill Clinton understood the broken public welfare system. We just haven't found a better way to build a safety net that reduces dependence. Then the canard gerrymandering which is misused by both parties to perpetuate incumbency. Just like term limits, the politicians will never accept any threat to their terms. Then as the left and right bicker, even to hatred, we see a stalemate developing, perhaps as planned.
Dependency is a canard used to manage people like you - assuming you are not 1% else you would not be here - so the cries just now about "too much unemployment benefits" bah humbug - your ideology is showing - but the failure of Clinton and Obama is going to be rectified ...hoping AOC and the rest can pull Biden over to the correct side again
You don’t have to be elite to go to a restaurant and find that they’re operating at half staff because some people prefer to take a government check than work for one. That’s called creating a dependent class that will always vote themselves more of other people’s moneys.
And unless you pass the SB1, the “Taking Daley’s Chicago/Rizzo’s Philadelphia/Tamanny Hall/ Electoral fraud Act” national, you have about a year and a half to finish the transformation of this country into something out of “1984”.
1 Question Punya. Why would make you happy to see in this country? 10 genders,? Corps and businesses filling quota putting diversity over being qualified for said job? Cancelling peoples lives cause they said something non politically correct? Corona mandates and testing until the end of time? Teaching your young kids in school about homosexuality and trans rights? Murderes arrested and most immediately released back on the streets? I just dont understand whats the appeal nowadays from the left to the average human. Blows me away, really
AOC?! HAHA. You are now making me think youre possibly a tool account. What next? Bernie was the best person for the job Biden appointing him to handle America's money?
Or just facts - like number of Republicants who decided the election was fraudulent - oh sorry, facts and their darn liberal bias. Or that the lies powering racist election laws are obvious to all - including the guys making them. Or that the transgender culture war nonsense that can hurt real kids and families is this generation's version of abortion- sigh =
How do you extrapolate misogyny, racism, and hate from a protest that turned into a riot? The first women to be elected to a state house or government position was a republican in Wyoming. Is one racist if they believe in meritocracy? What happened to character? Is it right to resist arrest when you have an outstanding warrant? Transgenderism is less than 1% of society so your comment is rather lacking.
To this day I'm perplexed why it is racist to require an ID? Most transactions of an meaning require an ID. You can't get a mortgage or a car loan without one. You cannot receive a credit card, or apply to a college without supplying one, you can't pick up certain medications without one, you can't see a physician or be seen at an emergency room without one, and on and on.
When a bunch of pink people run a riot, supported by a racist police department that has orders to ignore them, to fight against an election lost by an explicitly racist orange man, and won by black and brown people voting in unprecedented numbers - yes, racist - amusing to see you guys fall over yourselves to excuse your racism, misogyny etc while claiming a lack of facts
I would posit that calling Trump 'explicitly racist' is at best something of a distortion. At any rate, if the claims in You Are Still Crying Wolf are true (written after he won the 2016 election but before he took office) - https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/ - and if I remember correctly, Trump actually won a higher percentage of the black and hispanic vote in 2020 than he did in 2016, but lost the election overall because of a collapse in support among whites relative to 2016. That would suggest that he was not *enough* of an explicit racist for that to be a significant factor among the demographics you would expect to be most worried about it.
Here's my model: Everyone (apart from maybe those with some unusual neurological conditions like Williams Syndrome) has at least a bit of an in-group bias, and race is a really easy axis on which to form an in-group bias; your skin is your uniform, as they say. Thus it is extremely unlikely that we can ever fully eliminate racial bias, we can only approach it asymptotically, with diminishing returns as we apply heavier and heavier pressure, and punish more and more false positives more and more severely, as we try to squeeze out every last drop of racism. But the USA, as of the early 21st Century, was doing pretty well on that score, being among one of the least racist societies in the world (exclusing, I guess, monoethnic societies remote enough to be basically unaware of other races).
However, at the same time as being one of the most racially tolerant societies in human history, the USA had also become one of the most hysterically oversensitised-to-racism societies in human history. These two points may not be unrelated.
On that measure, on a scale of someone-with-Williams-syndrome to literally Bull Connor, Trump is maybe fractionally less racially tolerant than the median white septuagenarian in one of the most racially tolerant societies, but is still far closer to the Williams Syndrome end than the Bull Connor end, and there are far more important things to worry about, including the fact that after decades of gradual impoverishment as their economic base was sold out from underneath them, the average working class white American's only real champion in politics was an obnoxious loudmouth reality TV star with not much of a plan, who failed to embody any of the religious virtues they would want in a leader, but was about the only politician to not treat them with sneering contempt.
I'm also curious about the basis on which you call the Washington DC police department racist. I don't know enough about them to know whether that claim is justified, but it is the sort of claim that one ought to have to justify. (Note that it's not enough to prove that they hassle/arrest/kill black people at a higher rate than their share of the population; you would need to prove that that disparity does not go away when you control for the disparate proportion of crime committed by black people).
Thank you for an attempt at thoughtfulness. But sorry/not sorry - Donald is a happy racist. He may not be a well thought through and articulate one - but "rapists and murderers", "fine people on both sides", "Proud Boys stand by" are clear enough - beyond dog whistles (welfare mothers) and foghorns- attempts to deny his racism are gaslighting - like pretending there is a real audit in AZ, or that the voter suppression laws are not racist etc etc. Getting votes from some LatinX or Black people is not surprising. First a lot of LatinX - e.g. Cubans are "really white, not like those people". Second, a lot of young men are into the high Id, no Super ego mode of Donald (and Narendra Modi in India, or Orban in Hungary, Bolsnaro in Brazil, Netanyahoo in Israel etc). This just means that their high misogyny helps them ignore the insults to others who are not them.
He is clearly on the "Bull Connor" end - kids in cages, policies of deliberate cruelty etc. It is interesting that long standing racism by Republicants seems to have made you relaxed about norms that are insanely cruel by any high consuming society - you have hungry chidren, sick peope dying because of money, old people dying alone, and children crippled because of bad schools and poor starter jobs - and all this is racially shaped - and all this is OK? Just because you are using physical whips, does not mean that this society is not using race to sort and punish people.
Not sure I called the DC police deptt racist. I said that the response to Jan 6th was racist- compared to the militarised presence on the BLM march. If I said or implied otherwise I apologize - that was an error. I do not know their stats -and will say that a lot of police departments act in systemically racist ways - Ferguson may have been an outlier, but ...here is a paper that analysed how administrative data is mislabeled (remember that officially Floyd died because of himself, the video showed otherwise) - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3336338
It is a 2019 paper called Administrative Records Mask Racially Biased Policing - and a key sentence is -show the traditional estimator can severely underestimate levels of racially biased policing or mask discrimination entirely. (in Las Vegas terms presto - no racism).
To your claim on the larger number of black criminals (which is an open hypothesis given how badly racist both arrests and records are), here is a study that looked at police violence - from 2016, before it was fashionable - and found that " Black-on-white homicides increase officer-involved killings of African Americans but black-on-black homicides and measures for political and economic threat do not." in other words it is white police "feeling" threatened that increases violence - not actual crimes. The article is "Group Threat, Police Officer Diversity and the Deadly Use of Police Force" https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2778692
I could go on - lots of recent papers too which are more stinging because of ideology (less starting from an assumption that the police are acting fairly) and data (big data, AI etc).
This left wing Hindutva idiot is a pseudo-intellectual. The left wing is the party of illegal aliens, abortions, single mothers, broken family units, EBT, gender politics, etc. Left wing ideologies have not created winning societies. Usually civilizations at their collapse where at their most liberal point.
There’s no need to respond to this Hindutva chain migrant.
Not trying to defend OP here, but it's pretty easy to detect voter fraud without IDs. When people turn up to vote (or send in mail-in ballots), tick off the name they give from the list. If their names gets ticked off twice, someone committed fraud, and the case should be followed up. This is what happens in most democratic countries, including the US.
I find it humorously ironic that you answered my observation of your obvious drunkenness on the liberal propaganda machine by regurgitating more liberal propaganda and agenda points and then claiming them as facts... People like yourself can't see beyond the propaganda and narratives they've been fed, yet claim to be the wise ones. Quite humorous (and sad at the same time). lol... Carry on o drunk wise one.
What does the claim that the election was fraudulent have to do with racism?
And why should we be concerned only with the transgender people hurt by red team anti-trans activism, and not with the ... mostly adolescent biologically female people, I suppose, though not exclusively, who are harmed by blue team pro-trans activism? It's not as if there are zero detransitioners whose lives would have been better if the people urging caution about hormones and surgery weren't being shouted down as bigots.
If transgender concerns were rooted in care not war, there would be greater focus on counselling by real counsellors (not mail order church certificates) and real research by people who spend their lives helping young people navigate a very difficult life problem. It seems a little ridiculous that you expect anyone to believe that politicians who are lying about voting, are proud to be anti-gay, are happily misogynist, suddenly care for vulnerable children - do Medicare expansion then talk about "care"
To be clear, I'm not claiming that *Republican politicians* who are opposed to the excesses of trans activists are *necessarily* motivated purely out of concern for the demographics most harmed by trans activism; but to the degree that they are *in alliance* on this subject with the people who are trying to limit the very real harms caused by trans activism, I see no reason to *presuppose* that they are acting in bad faith either.
The harms caused to trans people by anti-trans activism are often real.
The harms caused to (mostly) cis women by trans activism are also often real.
And part of the problem is that it is mostly the pro-trans-activism people who are trying to *prevent* honest research on the topic, as far as I can see. To the degree that Republican politicians are our allies in trying to limit the harms caused by trans activists, I see no good reason to presumptively begrudge them that, as long as we are careful to make sure that their policy prescriptions are actually going to prevent more harm than they cause.
You seem to be implying that we should *only* be worried about the harm caused by anti-trans activism, and not about the harm caused by pro-trans activism. But I could be misreading you. Can you clarify?
Some fair points here - we should be looking at harm/benefits overall and to all populations. And I will say that activism in its nature tends to blur edges and makes for more yes/no binaries than is humanly sensible. The answer to my mind is greater compassion and data - with a scrupulous check on assumptions.
Turning to the places I find your statements troubling-
A) How can we give a bunch of liars and cheats the benefit of the doubt in this instance - what is the reason you would suggest they actually care for kids - when their ongoing rhetoric and policy clearly shows otherwise. To presuppose is rational, to trust divine I guess - but these folk are not on the side of the Divine which offers deep love to everyone not just a chosen few
B) Not sure what the harm to cis-women by trans- activists are - if you are referring to JK Rowling being called our for being asinine - seriously, this is harm? But do you have real cases of harm? Love to see it as this is not an area I have seen much evidence -
C) Again, not seeing much evidence of research being stopped - do see evidence that bigoted presumptions by researchers are being challenged
D) People with "purity rules" tend to cause more harm - this is a red flag for many of us concerned with everyone's wellbeing - "People who value following purity rules over caring for others are more likely to view gay and transgender people as less human, which leads to more prejudice and support for discriminatory public policies, according to a new study." https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0000537
E) and increasing research on neuroscience and brain structures show things like - "Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender, according to new research. The findings suggest that differences in brain function may occur early in development and that brain imaging may be a useful tool for earlier identification of transgenderism in young people."
repeat - pink people were the only ones (other than Uncle Tim and a few token black/brown useful foils) who tell the lie that there was a problem with the elections - there were minor problems as is common - and all recred fraud so far is by Republicans - shame that the Lt Idiot of Texas refuses to pay up for evidence of election fraud because it shows up by republicants
Pot meet Kettle. Sometimes its hard to see the racism/bigotry/xenophobia in oneself. As a wise POC once said; Never apologize for not being what they're used to.
Oh goodness. You are a wee bit misdirected here, my friend. If you have a cogent and considered point to make, please feel free. We’ll wait. Careful, though-your conformation bias is showing.
1 Question Punya. Why would make you happy to see in this country? 10 genders,? Corps and businesses filling quota putting diversity over being qualified for said job? Cancelling peoples lives cause they said something non politically correct? Corona mandates and testing until the end of time? Teaching your young kids in school about homosexuality and trans rights? Murderes arrested and most immediately released back on the streets? I just dont understand whats the appeal nowadays from the left to the average human. Blows me away, really
The election was filled with circumstantial evidence that points to massive fraud. You are too blinded by ideology to look at the evidence. There’s statistical evidence, thousands of sworn affidavits (many from Democrats) and the mere fact that they changed election laws by going around state legislations. Stop listening to corporate media that is completely owned by the CCP, and yes, they are owned by them. But you will point to the same media to tell you “no, that isn’t true.” Truly astonishing. Biden just lifted sanctions to allow Russia to continue their oil pipeline into Europe.... but Trump is the compromised one... how do you twist your brain into justifying actions like these?
What are you going to say when AZ forensic audit is finished?
Your party has disputed every election since Region. You called Bush Hitler. You conceived and executed the Russia Hoax.
It:s racist to demand voter ID? Because minorities can't get or don't have IDs?
You need to listen to opposing media. I recommend Ben Shapiro's podcast for just plain facts. What people are reacting to is your mindless regurgitation of the media's talking points and naming of civilized people whom they hate as though they were some gang of criminals.
For your own sake stop watching the MSM. They are gas lighting you. No really. You have to listen to the oppositions points.
The "insurrection" on January 6th managed to purposefully kill zero people (at least by protestors; there was the lady shot by the police) and to my knowledge burn zero buildings. So it doesn't exactly go against his argument on cardinal v. ordinal preferences. So at basically the pinnacle of recent right wing protest, when they were so worked up that a president supposedly needed to be impeached for how violent they were, they couldn't match a random tuesday night in Seattle or Portland as far as violence and property damage.
I don't understand how the above comment was either racist or an attempt at humour - it looks like a straightfoward, non-race-related factual claim to me.
Here's like 12 studies showing republicans are happier and healthier than democrats, a lot to do with optimism, and religiosity. Hope you find a way to live with it <3
From your mouth to God's ears- wishing you well with all these attributes - why would you imagine that anyone who cares about people would want you to be less healthy, happy, sexually satisified etc? Have more, be happier
This is such a good piece. A few thoughts from a miscellaneous tech/finance guy that has been thinking about these issues as well:
1) When a society starts to get squeezed economically, some sectors get hit first,
and therefore get motivated first. E.g. Academia and the Media, where as you point out the pay is terrible. Well, that's where all the liberals are. So the liberals get motivated first. In general, all the conservative professionals & ownership class have done well over the past few decades economically and are not politically motivated. I've met plenty of 8 & 9 figure conservatives, and all they want to do is go hang out in Sun Valley etc.
2) Identity is another big driver in the disparity of political motivation. "Boomerism" spoiled the energy of a generation, but Boomerism is not evenly distributed across Identities. If I am Jewish, I grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust, not the warm embrace of post-WWII American prosperity. If I am an Indian or Chinese immigrant, or a Black American, I did not have this spoiling / demotivating Boomer experience growing up. The vast majority of these high motivation identities are Dem.
3) None of these dynamics are necessarily stable. My amateur sense is that in any given society, the left tends to radicalize first. Left people are inherently unhappy (lots of data on this point), and unhappiness is motivating. But, left radicalizing leads to right radicalizing. So, you get a race for the left to consolidate gains before the right can come back from the golf course.
4) So, to your point, if you are on the right, things are going to get worse before they (might) get better. Because until things get worse, you just can't effectively motivate your side. The scary thing for those of us that Just Live Here, is that the farther behind the right falls, the more aggressively it has to fight to catch up. So it gets trapped between either surrendering to the left, or empowering its own radicals & strongmen (perhaps this is the 1920's / 1930's Europe problem - obviously the socialists/communists "shot first").
5) Trump can be interpreted as the most radicalized part of the right, the non-college whites that have spent the last few decades getting hurt and therefore getting motivated, trying to force the elite part of the right to radicalize as well. It didn't work because Trump is a rich guy that doesn't really care and it was easier to just lie and get into twitter fights rather than take serious action against left controlled big institutions.
7) It remains to be seen what happens if and when the right wing elite does get motivated. That is, people like Sean Hannity go from *pretending* they think and care that they're losing the country to actually thinking and caring that they are losing the country. I think they will decide they prefer not fight, and either accept the "New America", or take their money and leave the country. But, TBD.
Thanks again for the piece.
re: Left being 'inherently unhappy' - I find the 'neurotic level' incredibly high in NYCity especially among females (and if you want to slice it even further Jewish females - it's off the charts). It feels unhealthy being near them; there's no rationality, it's all 'feelings'.
What "didn't work" with Trump? All the stuff he did (tax cuts, regulation rollbacks, border wall) are popular with conservatives. Trump "worked" in the same way any Republican enacting Republican policy "works" for conservatives.
Trump enacted little legislation of consequences outside of the tax cuts. He was successful of changing the tenor of our foreign policy stance, but was not successful at bringing our allies onboard or otherwise crafting a coherent strategy. He ultimately did very little to transform our institutions or bureaucracies.
It will take a more organized and effective person to bring about meaningful change for the "Trump movement". There are candidates out there that can do it, but Trump himself isn't it.
1-4 are excellent points. The issue is how much worse is it going to get before it gets better?
Do you have any data around academia and media being hit first in economic downturns? Repeatedly, analyses of our modern economy find industries affected most include retail, restaurants, travel/tourism, leisure/hospitality, service purveyors, real estate, & manufacturing/warehouse. Are these what you consider unhappy, liberal economic sectors?
As far as energy for political activity, people who believe every pregnancy should go to term are among the most motivated. People who are afraid their children will be turnt by reading the wrong library book, or have their feelings hurt by learning that slavery was central to the founding of the country, are pretty loud; it's not uncommon for their pet issues to be what politicians run on. Didn't Youngkin win Virginia by promising that CRT -- a grad school level topic -- won't be allowed in K-12 schools? GOP candidates don't win office without pretending their religion and right to own guns are continually under threat. Those issues, which stand in for a pols' true goals (minimizing taxes and regulations on their donors), wouldn't resonate unless their base hadn't been trained to see persecution where it doesn't exist.
Rightwing media is, funnily enough, the opposite of a free market endeavor. While squealing about communism, it's a billionaire-sustained propaganda machine organized around stoking rage and panic. The biz model relies on fearful and angry customers tuning in to watch animated alarmists warn them about black criminals, communists, their "religious freedom" being endangered by strangers' sex lives, family planning, and marriages, large black rapists, socialists, China, shadowy Jews, the deep state and the new world order, pedophiles, and especially "they."
The audience for this hype is overstimulated by fear, anger, and wounded entitlement. The "fuck your feelings" gang who deludes themselves it scores points by calling other people "emotional" continuously shits their pants while posting all the outrageous items they lift from the MSM in order to screech "they don't want you to know ____!"
Then they turn up and behave horribly at school board meetings, surround women's reproductive care clinics with hostility, spit on, rip the masks off and worse to random people they come across in public, openly fantasize about mutilating and murdering Pence, Fauci, and every single person trump hired ("only the best!") and fired ("I always said they were terrible!"), or anyone who dares to report a correct vote count, writes a factual article about or attempts to hold trump accountable for crimes, rush to social media to document yet *another* masked driver in a car alone...
And you think liberals are unhappy and more politically motivated? Pound for pound, you'll find more seething, and many more sharpened flagpoles, in GQP households.
>In a democracy, every vote is supposed to be equal. If about half the country supports one side and half the country supports another, you may expect major institutions to either be equally divided, or to try to stay politically neutral.
>Yet Republicans get close to half the votes
They do not.
This is fundamentally very flawed. 48% of Americans are democrats or democratic leaning independents as opposed to 38% identifying as Republicans or republican leaning independents.
So to start off with, an entire tenth of the populace is a massive difference when you are mass marketing. Then we can get into asymmetrical support for the parties by age. It is no secret that the democratic party is much younger than the republican party, and marketers prefer to target populations at the start of their consumption lifespan than at the end of them.
Also democrats are generally closer to empirical reality on issues than Republicans, meaning that supporting republican causes will generally involve intentionally being incorrect
And finally, the essential framing imposed by the first paragraph is wrong: nothing about the allocation of capital or the actions of market actors is "democratic"
"Also democrats are generally closer to empirical reality on issues than Republicans, meaning that supporting republican causes will generally involve intentionally being incorrect"
LOL -- Nothing that the left says on gender or transgender issues, and virtual nothing the left says on crime has the benefit of being empirically true! In fact the truth in areas of gender and crime statistics are thoughtcrime that is liable to get the speaker banned.
If truth were the goal of the left, they wouldn't censor everything they disagree with -- they would engage in debate in the pursuit of truth. But they flee debate and seek censorship, overwhelmingly. In history, the side of censorship has never been the side that puts truth first.
In history there has never been a side that puts truth first, only small pockets here and there.
Perhaps this is so, but the active measures to suppress discussion even slightly outside of the left's year zero orthodoxy is indicative of a sinister enterprise.
...and you can't carry with that one.
Seriously - the only people who believe this canard on "censorship" are Faux Noise and LieMax watchers. Many of us do have concerns with the extreme voices - e.g. silly cancel culture - but then some Republicant opens their mouth and we see real problems - killing innocent people by the state, anti women agendas, anti-poor movements, and of course voting rights ...silly fellows who want their lies to be treated like facts are funny but not taking them seriously is not censorship- it is just enjoying a fact based world
Says the guy who uses BS terms like 'Faux Noise', 'Lie Max', 'Republicant', 'anti women', 'anti-poor', ad nauseum. You can catch brain pathogens from consuming too much propaganda, you know... It's like surfing the Net without an antivirus program.
Or watching " conservative outlets" to get a real chill!
Eh. I don’t have much trouble picking the wheat from the chaff in the right-leaning media. The sanctimonious framing on the left, OTOH... The BS on both sides is completely, laughably, head-shakingly obvious. It’s just that more people really seem to buy the left BS. Sad.
The right is intellectual in its framing, while the left is visceral. Rightists will argue that their ideas are good, but leftists will argue that their ideas are believed by good people (and that anyone who disagrees is outrageously evil.)
That is because Democrats are BS - Better Said!
Only if you redefine 'fact' to mean 'woke Democrat narrative,' but I suppose they're redefining all sorts of terms ('white supremacist' is a good example; apparently, like the leader of the Proud Boys, they no longer even need to be white).
The USA could not be more pro woman if it tried. There is no anti woman anything in the west
Boy, are you ever wrong on that issue! As an MD you should know better. But you are a great example of republican dogma - the left is trying to censor "free speech." That is why trump disbanded so many media outlets from his "news conferences." That was why he was so critical of most media. It had to agree with trump or get slandered. So, my belief is that republicans, especially the ultra - right are for censorship - when it comes to books , literature, the media, the body.
How many of those media outlets were silenced? None! The left cancels books and authors whose ideas they disagree with. The right merely wishes to remove explicit pornography and grooming material from the reach of young children
There is no room for ignorance and stupidity. Get lost , preferably in a library!
They each have their weak points. I would say that climate denialism has more long-term, material consequences than gender juju, even though for specific people that might be really bad. And I admit that climate change isn't an existential threat. It's just a matter of how much a giant, expensive pain in the butt it will be.
What many "deny" about the climate is that it is a crisis and that anyone can reliably predict it. Few would deny that climate changes but any reasonably intelligent person would certainly recognize that no one, so far, has managed to predict it even 10 years in advance! To spend trillions on fruitless attempts to change a climate that no one knows how to control would be insanity except that it's actually just a way to control voters through hobgoblins and enrich ones friends.
Do you actually believe, Andy, that the world is going to burn up if we don't do something? Do you actually believe that the politicians on your team believe this as they jet around in private planes, buy oceanfront mansions and use more energy than 100 average citizens? Do you actually think they would be calling for open borders knowing that the carbon footprint of the average illegal alien grows enormously once they cross the border? If you do believe that you are, I am afraid, a fool.
I'm much more on the develop cheap nuclear and better storage for renewables, plan Netherlands-like flood protections around port cities, and stop selling subsidized flood insurance for the beachfront mansions you mentioned so that people will go ahead and move away. It seems like ground transportation will mostly electrify itself over the next 25 years and maybe short-haul air transport. My hot take is you won't get the carbon you put into rail back in the US before mid-range electric or hybrid flights get cheap.
Open boarders is a hardcore libertarian idea that I have some sympathy for — as someone with a skillset that wouldn't be hurt too much by it, but the left would do well to can that idea as soon as the current racial moral panic ebbs away.
Well this is the point, isn't it - the people claiming that Global Warming is an existential threat to the "habitability" of Earth then pivot to propose solutions dependent upon an impossible multilateral international regulatory regime and other measures which consist of items on their long term political wish list anyway. They don't say "and that's why we should cut red tape to increase nuclear energy, and in the meantime find engineering solutions to the more acute effects of this phenomenon."
In any event, people on the right are correct to be skeptical. Global Warming only became a front line political issue (it isn't really - most voters don't rank it in the top 10 or so of their concerns) after the 2000 Presidential Election and aftermath when it was suggested that Al Gore would continue his "leadership" by addressing Global Warming (which was not a priority of the Presidential administration in which he actually served).
The Paris Accords aren't impossible. China, for example, has made good progress.
The rest of the world, and the majority of Americans, understand the severity of the climate threats. Only oil companies and the people who believe their propaganda, put out by the politicians, media, and think tanks they own, can even pretend otherwise.
The idea that concern about global warming started with Al Gore's electoral defeat is a theory you came up but failed to test against reality. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House. Do you think homes that have been washed away or burned down are habitable? Have you noticed that's happening more and more, all over the world?
Who, exactly, is calling for "open borders"? Like, specifically, where in a paper or speech is any powerful Democrat suggesting that "open borders" be a plank in the Dem platform?
And do you think carbon footprints are divided up like countries? That people trying to enter the US only have children once they arrive here? Do they also start taking international flights and cruises once they cross the magic line?
> And do you think carbon footprints are divided up like countries? That people trying to enter the US only have children once they arrive here? Do they also start taking international flights and cruises once they cross the magic line?
Well, a big part of open borders is that it increases world GDP. More prosperous people fly more.
What happens if you are wrong?
"Isn't an existential threat"?? WOW! At this point - before it gets really abd - we have several 100,000 dead every year, and tens of millions of migrants. The increase in overall heat in different countries - including the US - is modeled to show dramatic drops in life expectancy - and remember that COVID-19 pandemic - as forecast in the US' National Intelligence Assessments is because of climate change - just multiply this by 20 - even if we do not have a dimwit in charge for the next one, the death toll will still be huge
Can you point to ANY "modeled" climate predictions over the last 40 years that have been correct? Nothing the climate alarmists have predicted has come true! Why are you so convinced they are right this time? If you employed a stock broker with the record of the climate lobby you would be bankrupt.
Wake up, buddy, they've never been right.
stop reading Bjorn Lomborg (assuming you can read more than a Faux Noise "story" and you will see that your statement is just wrong
Apparently you know of no correct predictions made by the doom and gloom crowd either but that doesn't seem to slow down your irrational faith. Why not read Bjorn Lomberg? He's an intelligent, well spoken critic of both sides of the debate. Interesting you pick out a "lujewarmer" to cancel. His moderate position must scare you and your ilk.
Yeah, cause thats what keeps america citizens up all night losing sleep... worrying about climate change. Ya
There is no serious debate over whether climate change is happening, none. The only serious debate is over how fast it's happening and how to stop it. All indications are it's happening even faster than scientists predicted a few decades ago. We're in big trouble.
"Big Trouble"?? Well not from climate change which most agree is happening but which is 1. Happening slowly ( about 1 degree C/century) and 2. Mostly seeming to have beneficial effects.
The biggest "trouble" we face is political and social not climate or weather related which is obvious if one follows even basic statistics. Poverty worldwide is falling faster than anytime in history while wealth continues to grow across almost all demographics rich and poor. Food production outside a few isolated segments continues to increase. Droughts, fires, hurricanes and other severe weather are on a slight downward trend over the last 40 years.
Where, exactly, is the climate related trouble?
Most of the measurable warming has been in cold regions of the far N and, to a lesser extent, in the far S and then mostly at night. I don't think the Siberians and Inuit view nightime winter temperatures being a little warmer as "big trouble"! The truth is there is a lot of hysteria around this whole issue that is, so far, completely unjustified. While there may be more crime and poop in the street in San Francisco and other left coast cities for most of humanity life is improving, particularly among the very poor. There is actually lots to cheer about if one doesn't get caught up in the propaganda spewed by our media.
WRONG! It has been an ongoing challenge but, not for the weak minded. And your comparison is a non sequitur - doesn't make sense
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
It would be interesting to see how the NASA study was done as it disagrees with much of what I have read about the models grossly overestimating warming. My guess is that they are adjusting the models to close the discrepancies that open up year after year and then claiming these adjusted models closely "predicted" the future climate when they did nothing of the sort. The below study contradicts the NASA study you cited and they can't both be right.
https://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all
https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models
Gistemp, unfortunately, doesn't tell one much. The inherent errors are far to great and outweigh the projected changes. Interesting that they don't want to use UAH satellite temperature records that actually measure the WHOLE planet's temperature multiple times a day. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
How about rising global average temperatures? Polar ice diminishing year on year? These things are easily verified to be happening. Unless you think an institution like NASA is in some great climate hoax.
Existential threat means everyone dies. Half the people on Earth could die — which is pretty unlikely with just climate change — and it's not an existential threat. Unless climate change triggers a nuclear war or something, it probably won't kill everybody — even a bird blue with a 60% fatality rate and as contagious as measles wouldn't do that. It'll probably kill tens or hundreds of millions of people and immiserate even more — although largely in the poor global south — but you do have to balance that against your other priorities. The poor will always exist. Some people will always be f----d. Life will never be fair.
Gods - what a silly statement - this is why pink bois piss people off - it is an act of gloating privilege to write off a a few million dying for the right to drive a gas guzzler. And luckily we live in a world where such statements are increasingly seen as cruel and needless - a better - morally and intellectually- questions would be to ask - how do we generate abundance for all of us!
He wasn't writing it off; he was just pointing out that it isn't an existential threat, which has a fairly concise, widely-agreed-on definition: an existential threat is something with a non-trivial chance of causing the human species to go extinct.
He presumably agrees that the worst case scenarios would be very, very bad, but there's an extremely important distinction between things that are merely very, very bad and things that are existential threats, and we should try not to get the two categories confused.
(Though at the risk of pissing off everyone involved here, I should probably disagree with Andy as well - I'm not sure that nuclear war would be an existential threat either. It would presumably kill millions in the cities that one could expect would be hit, but as far as I know, we just don't have enough nukes to get everyone, and people in the countryside would survive and have a chance at rebuilding civilisation).
Hmm. I don’t think that was the intention or message of what the poster wrote. God, this is a truly terrible medium for communication.
It could mean lfe or death for future generations, if you cared.
>Satanic panic
>Phonics is bad
>Healthy at every size
>Men can compete in women's sports. No biological advantage
>Homosexuality is 100% genetic with no environmental factors
>Protesting COVID lockdowns bad and will spread COVID, but BLM protests are fine
>BLM riots were "mostly peaceful"
> "Hand up don't shoot"
>IQ is pseudoscience
>There is no racial IQ gap
>Gender wage gap is 100% due to discrimination
>Implicit bias
>That guy with a dong, yeah it's "MA'AM"
>Defunding the police won't lead to an increase in crime
>Russiagate collusion
>>Yet Republicans get close to half the votes
>They do not.
They do. Since 2010, the Republicans have had >50% of the House vote share twice, exactly as many times as the Democrats. In the last 20 years, Republicans haven't had less than 43% of total House vote share in any election.
Republicans on average get half the votes.
Allocation of House seats does not necessarily align with the voting preferences of the populations they represent.
But I didn't say *House seats*, did I?
I said *House vote share*.
As in, add up all of the votes received by all of the Republican candidates, and then do the same for the Democrat candidates. Republicans have had >50% of that number twice in the last ten years (2014 and 2010). So have Democrats (2018 and 2020, though just barely on that last one).
You can easily find this data for any election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections
That has nothing to do with allocation of seats.
The Republican House of Representatives won the popular vote in 2016 (at the same time Trump lost time), which suggests a lot of people still vote Republican even though they weren't too fond of Trump then.
He said "of the vote", not of "party identification to pollsters." When it comes to actual elections, the voters are roughly split in half.
In 2020, Democrats won the federal government by a slight majority, while the Republicans won state elections. In 2016, even though didn't win the popular vote, the Republican House of Representatives did.
As to "empirically on the issues", yeah, sure thing. Enjoy your lockdowns of children out of school even though they have a 0.0002% chance of dying of Covid. Enjoy your restrictions that don't work while your blue states simultaneously top the mortality rates.
"democrats are generally closer to empirical reality on issues than Republicans" - did you seriously just say that???
"democrats are generally closer to empirical reality on issues than Republicans"
The empirical reality is that Democrats are most likely to believe media lies, propaganda, and hold incorrect views of reality
https://www.justfacts.com/news_2019_survey_voter_knowledge
People who watch Fox News are less informed / more disinformed than people who consume no news.
People who develop attitudes and beliefs by consuming rightwing media other than Fox are even more detached from reality. There's been a fair amount of research on this.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/personality-type-as-well-as-politics-predicts-who-shares-fake-news/
"Personality Type, as well as Politics, Predicts Who Shares Fake News
Highly impulsive people who lean conservative are more likely to share false news stories. They have a desire to create chaos and won’t be deterred by fact-checkers."
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php
"[P]ro-Trump audiences paid the majority of their attention to polarized outlets that have developed recently, many of them only since the 2008 election season."
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234
"Results confirm that conservatives have lower sensitivity than liberals, performing worse at distinguishing truths and falsehoods. This is partially explained by the fact that the most widely shared falsehoods tend to promote conservative positions, while corresponding truths typically favor liberals. The problem is exacerbated by liberals’ tendency to experience bigger improvements in sensitivity than conservatives as the proportion of partisan news increases. These results underscore the importance of reducing the supply of right-leaning misinformation."
This is a very bad post full of cherrypicked info about subgroups; it also ignores nuance.
>"People who watch Fox News are less informed / more disinformed than people who consume no news.
People who develop attitudes and beliefs by consuming rightwing media other than Fox are even more detached from reality. There's been a fair amount of research on this."
No source for this; you likely just made it up.
>"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/personality-type-as-well-as-politics-predicts-who-shares-fake-news/
'Personality Type, as well as Politics, Predicts Who Shares Fake News
Highly impulsive people who lean conservative are more likely to share false news stories. They have a desire to create chaos and won’t be deterred by fact-checkers.' "
Also from your link: "There was no difference between liberals and conservatives with high levels of conscientiousness."
See this counter evidence as well: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/711133 "In a contrast with previous results, we find no evidence that citizens on the political right are especially likely to endorse false political information."
"Also democrats are generally closer to empirical reality on issues than Republicans"
To call that statement false is not nearly sufficient to express the extent of its ridiculousness.
Prove it?
where exactly do you get that 48% of americans are democrat ? are you out of your mind ? what the hell did you smoke ?
most Aemricans are independent. of the rest is a roughly even split of dems and reps with the current trends since 2015 seeing a shift towards the republican party, or more indeoendents.
If you simply get out of the big blue cities, most of America is either very red or very purple.
HONESTLY, how much of that missing ten percent difference of republicans are people who for one reason or another just have something to lose by publicizing it? Think about it. Not that I think thats a good thing... but people will literally get fired from their profession for such bs as being seen in a trump rally.
,
Excellent post. I think that you could change each instance of "care more about politics" to "care more about imposing their will on everyone else" and come as close, or closer, to the truth.
While the language of "imposition of will" is a bit of a trap, what is the point of politics if it's not to change the world? I dare say the farmers and workers had to "impose their will" to end Feudalism. Will to power is a central political tenant. What's more interesting is all the evidence that such actions are fundamentally impossible. What I don't know is if that's more true now than when we had Feudalism...if so, a hard row, if not, then hard things happen.
"what is the point of politics if it's not to change the world?" I think that an integral part of English/American political evolution has been to curb the "imposition of will". That's the point of our Constitution, although it's been warped beyond recognition by now. I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative (or a conservative-leaning libertarian), and it's a VERY hard philosophy to follow, since the urge to impose our will on others is so terribly hard to overcome.
Feudalism ended in most countries from the top down.
This is so funny. Your data is interesting - love the ordinal voter distinction. What is funny is your bland equivalence of positions - "conservative" may have been a position pre-Reagan (when dog whistles on "welfare" proliferated) but post Donald the parties of racism, hate, misogyny and so on really do not have a constituency. The simpler truth is that the "right" is not right any more by any sense of values - it is a morally bankrupt collection of liars (Greene, Gaetz, Hawley, Cruz, ...and on) with most of the "thinkers" (Hoover, Cato, Heritage, Mercatus - with a couple of exceptions) being whiny corporate shills. Your bland comment on "National Review suggests limiting voting" as if that is a reasonable position that should be engaged with in a 21st century democracy is amazing - your unwillingness to count the Jan6th insurrection as "conservative protest" shows a hypocrisy when you are digging up a tiny pro gun march! Sigh- read you because I like Tyler Cowen often but if this is the best you guys have - good luck - your grrymandering is only getting you so far. And your stats on health etc are funny - lots of data to the contrary - but they are by academics and researchers so you are better off looking at facebook
Ladies and gentlemen, in case you were wondering — behold, one of your liberal “elites”.
First - am elite by any definition of the term. And happy about it. Not sure when elite became a bad word - ah - when you would rather be unkind than thoughtful, rather recite talking points than reflect, and rather blame than reflect- sorry, not sorry
Umm...no. Maybe you have a credential or possibly some money? But if you are intending to use elite non-sarcastically, it's not typically going to be an elite that gets suckered into talking points the way you apparently have, or uses terms like "republicants" or "libtards".
One hallmark of elites is that they rarely call themselves elites...that likely puts you in the 'useful idiot' category
Brahmin Pride! Never fails.
Unfortunately Brahmin pride fails regularly - however, we are resilient and willing to bounce back!
Most actually racist people in the world.
Elite became a bad word around the time privilege did
“Elite” became a bad word when the supposed elites began the process of owning the rest of us. And BTW, considering yourself “elite” doesn’t make you one anymore than a man considering himself a woman.
I think that derisive coined terms "dog whistles" directly says bias. Even Bill Clinton understood the broken public welfare system. We just haven't found a better way to build a safety net that reduces dependence. Then the canard gerrymandering which is misused by both parties to perpetuate incumbency. Just like term limits, the politicians will never accept any threat to their terms. Then as the left and right bicker, even to hatred, we see a stalemate developing, perhaps as planned.
Dependency is a canard used to manage people like you - assuming you are not 1% else you would not be here - so the cries just now about "too much unemployment benefits" bah humbug - your ideology is showing - but the failure of Clinton and Obama is going to be rectified ...hoping AOC and the rest can pull Biden over to the correct side again
You don’t have to be elite to go to a restaurant and find that they’re operating at half staff because some people prefer to take a government check than work for one. That’s called creating a dependent class that will always vote themselves more of other people’s moneys.
And unless you pass the SB1, the “Taking Daley’s Chicago/Rizzo’s Philadelphia/Tamanny Hall/ Electoral fraud Act” national, you have about a year and a half to finish the transformation of this country into something out of “1984”.
1 Question Punya. Why would make you happy to see in this country? 10 genders,? Corps and businesses filling quota putting diversity over being qualified for said job? Cancelling peoples lives cause they said something non politically correct? Corona mandates and testing until the end of time? Teaching your young kids in school about homosexuality and trans rights? Murderes arrested and most immediately released back on the streets? I just dont understand whats the appeal nowadays from the left to the average human. Blows me away, really
AOC?! HAHA. You are now making me think youre possibly a tool account. What next? Bernie was the best person for the job Biden appointing him to handle America's money?
It’s hard to be plain-spoken when you’re lecturing, professor
"The party of racism, hate, misogyny..." ~ Talk about someone beyond drunk on the liberal propaganda machine.
"The party of racism, hate, misogyny..." are really just the wet dreams of Democrats & illiberal LEFT
Or just facts - like number of Republicants who decided the election was fraudulent - oh sorry, facts and their darn liberal bias. Or that the lies powering racist election laws are obvious to all - including the guys making them. Or that the transgender culture war nonsense that can hurt real kids and families is this generation's version of abortion- sigh =
How do you extrapolate misogyny, racism, and hate from a protest that turned into a riot? The first women to be elected to a state house or government position was a republican in Wyoming. Is one racist if they believe in meritocracy? What happened to character? Is it right to resist arrest when you have an outstanding warrant? Transgenderism is less than 1% of society so your comment is rather lacking.
To this day I'm perplexed why it is racist to require an ID? Most transactions of an meaning require an ID. You can't get a mortgage or a car loan without one. You cannot receive a credit card, or apply to a college without supplying one, you can't pick up certain medications without one, you can't see a physician or be seen at an emergency room without one, and on and on.
When a bunch of pink people run a riot, supported by a racist police department that has orders to ignore them, to fight against an election lost by an explicitly racist orange man, and won by black and brown people voting in unprecedented numbers - yes, racist - amusing to see you guys fall over yourselves to excuse your racism, misogyny etc while claiming a lack of facts
I would posit that calling Trump 'explicitly racist' is at best something of a distortion. At any rate, if the claims in You Are Still Crying Wolf are true (written after he won the 2016 election but before he took office) - https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/ - and if I remember correctly, Trump actually won a higher percentage of the black and hispanic vote in 2020 than he did in 2016, but lost the election overall because of a collapse in support among whites relative to 2016. That would suggest that he was not *enough* of an explicit racist for that to be a significant factor among the demographics you would expect to be most worried about it.
Here's my model: Everyone (apart from maybe those with some unusual neurological conditions like Williams Syndrome) has at least a bit of an in-group bias, and race is a really easy axis on which to form an in-group bias; your skin is your uniform, as they say. Thus it is extremely unlikely that we can ever fully eliminate racial bias, we can only approach it asymptotically, with diminishing returns as we apply heavier and heavier pressure, and punish more and more false positives more and more severely, as we try to squeeze out every last drop of racism. But the USA, as of the early 21st Century, was doing pretty well on that score, being among one of the least racist societies in the world (exclusing, I guess, monoethnic societies remote enough to be basically unaware of other races).
However, at the same time as being one of the most racially tolerant societies in human history, the USA had also become one of the most hysterically oversensitised-to-racism societies in human history. These two points may not be unrelated.
On that measure, on a scale of someone-with-Williams-syndrome to literally Bull Connor, Trump is maybe fractionally less racially tolerant than the median white septuagenarian in one of the most racially tolerant societies, but is still far closer to the Williams Syndrome end than the Bull Connor end, and there are far more important things to worry about, including the fact that after decades of gradual impoverishment as their economic base was sold out from underneath them, the average working class white American's only real champion in politics was an obnoxious loudmouth reality TV star with not much of a plan, who failed to embody any of the religious virtues they would want in a leader, but was about the only politician to not treat them with sneering contempt.
I'm also curious about the basis on which you call the Washington DC police department racist. I don't know enough about them to know whether that claim is justified, but it is the sort of claim that one ought to have to justify. (Note that it's not enough to prove that they hassle/arrest/kill black people at a higher rate than their share of the population; you would need to prove that that disparity does not go away when you control for the disparate proportion of crime committed by black people).
Thank you for an attempt at thoughtfulness. But sorry/not sorry - Donald is a happy racist. He may not be a well thought through and articulate one - but "rapists and murderers", "fine people on both sides", "Proud Boys stand by" are clear enough - beyond dog whistles (welfare mothers) and foghorns- attempts to deny his racism are gaslighting - like pretending there is a real audit in AZ, or that the voter suppression laws are not racist etc etc. Getting votes from some LatinX or Black people is not surprising. First a lot of LatinX - e.g. Cubans are "really white, not like those people". Second, a lot of young men are into the high Id, no Super ego mode of Donald (and Narendra Modi in India, or Orban in Hungary, Bolsnaro in Brazil, Netanyahoo in Israel etc). This just means that their high misogyny helps them ignore the insults to others who are not them.
He is clearly on the "Bull Connor" end - kids in cages, policies of deliberate cruelty etc. It is interesting that long standing racism by Republicants seems to have made you relaxed about norms that are insanely cruel by any high consuming society - you have hungry chidren, sick peope dying because of money, old people dying alone, and children crippled because of bad schools and poor starter jobs - and all this is racially shaped - and all this is OK? Just because you are using physical whips, does not mean that this society is not using race to sort and punish people.
Not sure I called the DC police deptt racist. I said that the response to Jan 6th was racist- compared to the militarised presence on the BLM march. If I said or implied otherwise I apologize - that was an error. I do not know their stats -and will say that a lot of police departments act in systemically racist ways - Ferguson may have been an outlier, but ...here is a paper that analysed how administrative data is mislabeled (remember that officially Floyd died because of himself, the video showed otherwise) - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3336338
It is a 2019 paper called Administrative Records Mask Racially Biased Policing - and a key sentence is -show the traditional estimator can severely underestimate levels of racially biased policing or mask discrimination entirely. (in Las Vegas terms presto - no racism).
To your claim on the larger number of black criminals (which is an open hypothesis given how badly racist both arrests and records are), here is a study that looked at police violence - from 2016, before it was fashionable - and found that " Black-on-white homicides increase officer-involved killings of African Americans but black-on-black homicides and measures for political and economic threat do not." in other words it is white police "feeling" threatened that increases violence - not actual crimes. The article is "Group Threat, Police Officer Diversity and the Deadly Use of Police Force" https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2778692
I could go on - lots of recent papers too which are more stinging because of ideology (less starting from an assumption that the police are acting fairly) and data (big data, AI etc).
This left wing Hindutva idiot is a pseudo-intellectual. The left wing is the party of illegal aliens, abortions, single mothers, broken family units, EBT, gender politics, etc. Left wing ideologies have not created winning societies. Usually civilizations at their collapse where at their most liberal point.
There’s no need to respond to this Hindutva chain migrant.
Not trying to defend OP here, but it's pretty easy to detect voter fraud without IDs. When people turn up to vote (or send in mail-in ballots), tick off the name they give from the list. If their names gets ticked off twice, someone committed fraud, and the case should be followed up. This is what happens in most democratic countries, including the US.
I find it humorously ironic that you answered my observation of your obvious drunkenness on the liberal propaganda machine by regurgitating more liberal propaganda and agenda points and then claiming them as facts... People like yourself can't see beyond the propaganda and narratives they've been fed, yet claim to be the wise ones. Quite humorous (and sad at the same time). lol... Carry on o drunk wise one.
I am offering facts - but if you are so lost in your fantasies of righteous pink people saving the republic - what to do? horses, water, no drinking
How would you like to be referred to as "shit brown" colored person? n the right is the racist party hu
What does the claim that the election was fraudulent have to do with racism?
And why should we be concerned only with the transgender people hurt by red team anti-trans activism, and not with the ... mostly adolescent biologically female people, I suppose, though not exclusively, who are harmed by blue team pro-trans activism? It's not as if there are zero detransitioners whose lives would have been better if the people urging caution about hormones and surgery weren't being shouted down as bigots.
If transgender concerns were rooted in care not war, there would be greater focus on counselling by real counsellors (not mail order church certificates) and real research by people who spend their lives helping young people navigate a very difficult life problem. It seems a little ridiculous that you expect anyone to believe that politicians who are lying about voting, are proud to be anti-gay, are happily misogynist, suddenly care for vulnerable children - do Medicare expansion then talk about "care"
To be clear, I'm not claiming that *Republican politicians* who are opposed to the excesses of trans activists are *necessarily* motivated purely out of concern for the demographics most harmed by trans activism; but to the degree that they are *in alliance* on this subject with the people who are trying to limit the very real harms caused by trans activism, I see no reason to *presuppose* that they are acting in bad faith either.
The harms caused to trans people by anti-trans activism are often real.
The harms caused to (mostly) cis women by trans activism are also often real.
And part of the problem is that it is mostly the pro-trans-activism people who are trying to *prevent* honest research on the topic, as far as I can see. To the degree that Republican politicians are our allies in trying to limit the harms caused by trans activists, I see no good reason to presumptively begrudge them that, as long as we are careful to make sure that their policy prescriptions are actually going to prevent more harm than they cause.
You seem to be implying that we should *only* be worried about the harm caused by anti-trans activism, and not about the harm caused by pro-trans activism. But I could be misreading you. Can you clarify?
Some fair points here - we should be looking at harm/benefits overall and to all populations. And I will say that activism in its nature tends to blur edges and makes for more yes/no binaries than is humanly sensible. The answer to my mind is greater compassion and data - with a scrupulous check on assumptions.
Turning to the places I find your statements troubling-
A) How can we give a bunch of liars and cheats the benefit of the doubt in this instance - what is the reason you would suggest they actually care for kids - when their ongoing rhetoric and policy clearly shows otherwise. To presuppose is rational, to trust divine I guess - but these folk are not on the side of the Divine which offers deep love to everyone not just a chosen few
B) Not sure what the harm to cis-women by trans- activists are - if you are referring to JK Rowling being called our for being asinine - seriously, this is harm? But do you have real cases of harm? Love to see it as this is not an area I have seen much evidence -
C) Again, not seeing much evidence of research being stopped - do see evidence that bigoted presumptions by researchers are being challenged
D) People with "purity rules" tend to cause more harm - this is a red flag for many of us concerned with everyone's wellbeing - "People who value following purity rules over caring for others are more likely to view gay and transgender people as less human, which leads to more prejudice and support for discriminatory public policies, according to a new study." https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0000537
E) and increasing research on neuroscience and brain structures show things like - "Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender, according to new research. The findings suggest that differences in brain function may occur early in development and that brain imaging may be a useful tool for earlier identification of transgenderism in young people."
repeat - pink people were the only ones (other than Uncle Tim and a few token black/brown useful foils) who tell the lie that there was a problem with the elections - there were minor problems as is common - and all recred fraud so far is by Republicans - shame that the Lt Idiot of Texas refuses to pay up for evidence of election fraud because it shows up by republicants
Pot meet Kettle. Sometimes its hard to see the racism/bigotry/xenophobia in oneself. As a wise POC once said; Never apologize for not being what they're used to.
So glad to see you agree with me - difficult to find people interested in facts in this thread - rock on
"Republicants!" Oh, what a jape! Do you mind if I employ it?
Let him go, if he loves his money as much as he thinks of himself, he won't be one of those that donates to the non-right.
Oh goodness. You are a wee bit misdirected here, my friend. If you have a cogent and considered point to make, please feel free. We’ll wait. Careful, though-your conformation bias is showing.
1 Question Punya. Why would make you happy to see in this country? 10 genders,? Corps and businesses filling quota putting diversity over being qualified for said job? Cancelling peoples lives cause they said something non politically correct? Corona mandates and testing until the end of time? Teaching your young kids in school about homosexuality and trans rights? Murderes arrested and most immediately released back on the streets? I just dont understand whats the appeal nowadays from the left to the average human. Blows me away, really
The election was filled with circumstantial evidence that points to massive fraud. You are too blinded by ideology to look at the evidence. There’s statistical evidence, thousands of sworn affidavits (many from Democrats) and the mere fact that they changed election laws by going around state legislations. Stop listening to corporate media that is completely owned by the CCP, and yes, they are owned by them. But you will point to the same media to tell you “no, that isn’t true.” Truly astonishing. Biden just lifted sanctions to allow Russia to continue their oil pipeline into Europe.... but Trump is the compromised one... how do you twist your brain into justifying actions like these?
What are you going to say when AZ forensic audit is finished?
Your party has disputed every election since Region. You called Bush Hitler. You conceived and executed the Russia Hoax.
It:s racist to demand voter ID? Because minorities can't get or don't have IDs?
You need to listen to opposing media. I recommend Ben Shapiro's podcast for just plain facts. What people are reacting to is your mindless regurgitation of the media's talking points and naming of civilized people whom they hate as though they were some gang of criminals.
For your own sake stop watching the MSM. They are gas lighting you. No really. You have to listen to the oppositions points.
The election AS fraudulent. Even some Democrats believe that.
The "insurrection" on January 6th managed to purposefully kill zero people (at least by protestors; there was the lady shot by the police) and to my knowledge burn zero buildings. So it doesn't exactly go against his argument on cardinal v. ordinal preferences. So at basically the pinnacle of recent right wing protest, when they were so worked up that a president supposedly needed to be impeached for how violent they were, they couldn't match a random tuesday night in Seattle or Portland as far as violence and property damage.
funny - but like most attempts at racist humor, not running well - e.g. Gutfailed
I don't understand how the above comment was either racist or an attempt at humour - it looks like a straightfoward, non-race-related factual claim to me.
BLUE TEAM GOOD! RED TEAM BAD!
Blue team less terrible, red mob ghastly
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886919300054 https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/evidence-base/conservatives-find-more-meaning-in-life-than-liberals/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1948550618768241 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914004553 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-020-00652-0 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009265661100170X https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/10/Republicans-Happiness.pdf https://news.gallup.com/poll/102943/republicans-report-much-better-mental-health-than-others.aspx https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1354068820930391 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912481/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2006/02/13/are-we-happy-yet/
Here's like 12 studies showing republicans are happier and healthier than democrats, a lot to do with optimism, and religiosity. Hope you find a way to live with it <3
Neurosis is a 'Democrat disease' - no joke - walk down a NYCity street and feel the wobbly vibes.
RW people are, on average:
- happier
- healthier
- live longer
- more good looking
- better in bed
No wonder Libs hate us! There is so much whining and wailing and undiluted COPE in these comments.
From your mouth to God's ears- wishing you well with all these attributes - why would you imagine that anyone who cares about people would want you to be less healthy, happy, sexually satisified etc? Have more, be happier