[Discussion] Election 2020

Seems like the board is set. Let’s see how this goes.

Yeah. I know. But the number of people involved in the stock market is not 34%. That’s disingenuous. That was my only point. Go do battle with people who actually disagree with your underlying premise.

My wife and I just contributed to the GA Senate runoff democratic candidates at gasenate.com. This is Stacey Abrams's fundraiser page.

e: fixed link

DSGamer wrote:

Yeah. I know. But the number of people involved in the stock market is not 34%. That’s disingenuous. That was my only point. Go do battle with people who actually disagree with your underlying premise.

Um, you realize if you followed that advice, you never would have responded to r013nt0 in the first place?

Like, it's kinda weird to disagree with someone you agree with on the underlying premise, and then give them advice not to disagree with people they agree with on the underlying premise.

I disagree.

>

>

>

>

*hugs*

?

I agree with the underlying premise that the importance of the stock market is overemphasized and benefits average Americans less than we think.

But the 34% number is wrong. That’s literally my only point.

Amoebic wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:
I know you're being facetious, but as I said earlier in the thread we don't need reeducation camps, we need education camps. We need to teach nearly half of American voters logic and critical thinking.

For a start, we could require a minimum IQ level for internet access and social media access. I think steps for limiting posting or reposting would go a long way. For instance, certain organizations would have to pass a credibility threshold to allow retweeting. Or posts would have to be submitted and vetted for retweet permissions.

Though you guys are pie-in-the-sky-ing, this is incredibly ableist against people who are neurotypical, have developmental disabilities. Also wasn't it kind of established that IQ tests are designed to disenfranchise certain races and social classes from entering higher education in the first place? Even if that's unfounded, this feels WAY too close to the literacy tests they used to give Black folks in order to be able to vote and we don't want to be repeating that history AT ALL. Hard, hard pass on this idea.

I don't know about being deliberately designed to disenfranchise certain groups of people but they do frequently get used that way. Anyone who treats IQ score as a a way to gauge overall intelligence is wildly misusing them. They test a very specific kind of intelligence and are inherenty culturally, linguistically, and economically biased.

DSGamer wrote:

?

I agree with the underlying premise that the importance of the stock market is overemphasized and benefits average Americans less than we think.

But the 34% number is wrong. That’s literally my only point.

ah, you're my replacement as Devil's Advocate around here.

good luck!

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

ah, you're my replacement as Devil's Advocate around here.

good luck!

Lol. No. Enjoy shadow boxing strawmen together. I’m out.

DSGamer wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

ah, you're my replacement as Devil's Advocate around here.

good luck!

Lol. No. Enjoy shadow boxing strawmen together. I’m out.

personally I think I tended to tango with tinmen, as often the argument I mistakenly attacked was *stronger* than the original one.

Badferret wrote:

This shift visualization map is great.

There will be so much to unpack from this election.

For instance, I'm super curious about the SC 1 race. The Charleston/Low Country area did see a big "Whole Foods" blue shift but yet, the 18 blue wave Democrat, Joe Cunningham lost his election bid vs the candidate he beat in 18.

The best early take I have seen is that Trump at the head of the ticket was the best of both worlds for down ballot Republicans. His cultist came out in droves, and the LP Republicans were able to vote against Trump at the top of the ticket and still vote R down ticket.

Obviously the big other trend nationwide is softness with the Hispanic/LatinX voters.

Probably the biggest question of all does the cult/Q block survive in big enough numbers. Historically, populist/racist movements have down well for a cycle or two and then just petered out. Normally, I would assume the same trend now, but this is the first time we've gone through one of the movements with the internet. I am heartened to see that Q has had a rough week.

ANy idea whats up with NY and Chicago on this map?

DSGamer wrote:

Lol. No. Enjoy shadow boxing strawmen together. I’m out.

I didn't even bother responding to you again since you clearly didn't want me to, so I'm not sure why this is the position you're choosing to take.

thrawn82 wrote:
Badferret wrote:

This shift visualization map is great.

There will be so much to unpack from this election.

For instance, I'm super curious about the SC 1 race. The Charleston/Low Country area did see a big "Whole Foods" blue shift but yet, the 18 blue wave Democrat, Joe Cunningham lost his election bid vs the candidate he beat in 18.

The best early take I have seen is that Trump at the head of the ticket was the best of both worlds for down ballot Republicans. His cultist came out in droves, and the LP Republicans were able to vote against Trump at the top of the ticket and still vote R down ticket.

Obviously the big other trend nationwide is softness with the Hispanic/LatinX voters.

Probably the biggest question of all does the cult/Q block survive in big enough numbers. Historically, populist/racist movements have down well for a cycle or two and then just petered out. Normally, I would assume the same trend now, but this is the first time we've gone through one of the movements with the internet. I am heartened to see that Q has had a rough week.

ANy idea whats up with NY and Chicago on this map?

I saw another version of this without the annoying animations. Yes, it looks like Chicago and some of it's suburbs may have trended red from where they were. But that's deltas versus raw numbers so meh.

lunchbox12682 wrote:

Yes, it looks like Chicago and some of it's suburbs may have trended red from where they were. But that's deltas versus raw numbers so meh.

Don't look at me.

BadKen wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

No, it's not a matter of education. It's a matter of emotions.

Logic and critical thinking enable one's decisions to not be ruled by emotion. They don't guarantee it, but they do enable it. And they can be taught. Education isn't going to magically turn everyone into a Vulcan. But it has a better chance than anything else I can think of to seed communities with thinkers that can help others avoid the dangers of manipulative emotional appeals.

IMAGE(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/62/1f/38/621f38fd955daee2859f802f06f97de4.jpg)

So we need to eradicate the "f*ck you, I got mine" mindset (aka republicans)?

Nimcosi wrote:
BadKen wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

No, it's not a matter of education. It's a matter of emotions.

Logic and critical thinking enable one's decisions to not be ruled by emotion. They don't guarantee it, but they do enable it. And they can be taught. Education isn't going to magically turn everyone into a Vulcan. But it has a better chance than anything else I can think of to seed communities with thinkers that can help others avoid the dangers of manipulative emotional appeals.

IMAGE(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/62/1f/38/621f38fd955daee2859f802f06f97de4.jpg)

So we need to eradicate the "f*ck you, I got mine" mindset (aka republicans)?

The way Republicans are dealing with the pandemic, they may eradicate themselves. It's a death cult from first to last.

Natus wrote:

The way Republicans are dealing with the pandemic, they may eradicate themselves. It's a death cult from first to last.

Inshallah.

Nimcosi wrote:
BadKen wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

No, it's not a matter of education. It's a matter of emotions.

Logic and critical thinking enable one's decisions to not be ruled by emotion. They don't guarantee it, but they do enable it. And they can be taught. Education isn't going to magically turn everyone into a Vulcan. But it has a better chance than anything else I can think of to seed communities with thinkers that can help others avoid the dangers of manipulative emotional appeals.

IMAGE(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/62/1f/38/621f38fd955daee2859f802f06f97de4.jpg)

So we need to eradicate the "f*ck you, I got mine" mindset (aka republicans)?

yes, just remember:

r013nt0 wrote:

Oh, and here's some more levity.

Americans successfully voting despite republican voter suppression efforts

Now someone chroma-key that blue floor into a lava field.

r013nt0 wrote:
Natus wrote:

The way Republicans are dealing with the pandemic, they may eradicate themselves. It's a death cult from first to last.

Inshallah.

I think I got that reference!

jdzappa wrote:

I’ve come to realize a few things about center right friends who voted for Trump this time around:

1. They saw both candidates as corrupt, out-of-touch, old White perverts. So they went with the devil they knew.

They went with the devil they *sympathized with*. They allowed Right Wing media to muddy the water especially about corruption, but it's not as if the MAGAS cared about actual Trump corruption. They only care about hypothetical Democratic corruption.[/quote]

jdzappa wrote:

2. Trump delivered a rocking economy and lowered taxes plus kept us out of new wars. Never underestimate the ability for people to vote their own interests over moral causes that don’t affect them or their families.

Trump merely continued the Obama economic trend and goosed it with a huge corporate/1% tax cut while incurring enormous deficits. Did the working class benefit? Not at all.

As for "keeping us out of new wars", he almost got us into two new ones in the most stupid ways imaginable (against Iran and North Korea), so much so that the Secretary of Defense was sleeping in his clothes at the WH and fearing an imminent nuclear exchange.

Trump has undeniably brought war to US cities, as we saw in Portland. We are the enemy now.

jdzappa wrote:

3. The riots and unrest have a lot of people spooked.

Then don't execute unarmed black people in the streets. It's a really simple solution.

jdzappa wrote:

It doesn’t help that there’s been escalating real violence

Gleefully exacerbated by Trump

jdzappa wrote:

and pics of Portland protesters embracing communism

I missed the hammer and sickle flags. Care to share? Or were those simply the Wall of Moms?

jdzappa wrote:

and calling for the downfall of America.

That never happened, but do go on.

jdzappa wrote:

I recognize these types are the minority but moderates and center right Republicans are as scared of the far left as the far right.

No, they aren't. They only want to give cover to their fascism, racism, and violence. If they are spooked by anything, it's at how many people across the nation and across the world sympathize with #BLM. That's new.

Stengah wrote:
Amoebic wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:
BadKen wrote:

I know you're being facetious, but as I said earlier in the thread we don't need reeducation camps, we need education camps. We need to teach nearly half of American voters logic and critical thinking.

For a start, we could require a minimum IQ level for internet access and social media access. I think steps for limiting posting or reposting would go a long way. For instance, certain organizations would have to pass a credibility threshold to allow retweeting. Or posts would have to be submitted and vetted for retweet permissions.

Though you guys are pie-in-the-sky-ing, this is incredibly ableist against people who are neurotypical, have developmental disabilities. Also wasn't it kind of established that IQ tests are designed to disenfranchise certain races and social classes from entering higher education in the first place? Even if that's unfounded, this feels WAY too close to the literacy tests they used to give Black folks in order to be able to vote and we don't want to be repeating that history AT ALL. Hard, hard pass on this idea.

I don't know about being deliberately designed to disenfranchise certain groups of people but they do frequently get used that way. Anyone who treats IQ score as a a way to gauge overall intelligence is wildly misusing them. They test a very specific kind of intelligence and are inherently culturally, linguistically, and economically biased.

Just to be crystal clear, I am opposed to requiring any kind of intelligence testing to qualify anyone to exercise their basic rights. I just want all levels of education to be better funded and more widely available. It kills me that this is not a fundamental priority of government at every level.

ESPECIALLY now that we have worked out a lot of the kinks in remote learning thanks to COVID-19. It would likely cost less in terms of infrastructure and reach more people than physical classes ever could.

That discussion probably doesn't belong in the 2020 election topic.

BadKen wrote:

ESPECIALLY now that we have worked out a lot of the kinks in remote learning thanks to COVID-19. It would likely cost less in terms of infrastructure and reach more people than physical classes ever could.

That discussion probably doesn't belong in the 2020 election topic. :D

Yikes, this is completely opposite my experience. My son, nieces, and nephews are struggling greatly with remote learning. The comraderie and positive peer pressure in education is real and without physical proximity, it's greatly diminished. And they're the ones with better-than-average situations.

My wife is also teaching elementary school remotely this year and the challenges she faces are intense. Many of her students don't have any adult oversight to help them when they struggle with technology or emotions. In fact, a lot of the older ones in middle and high school are having to help their younger relatives as best they can. Many are having such basic issues as a lack of electricity and internet connectivity. At least with traditional schooling once you get children to the school, you can look after all their needs. Free/low cost breakfast and lunch is just the start. When disadvantaged kids are stuck at home, they're still subject to all those obstacles and it makes their learning even more challenging.

Despite all this, a lot of those poorer families are keeping their kids home because they know it's the right thing to do. But there are still a ton of kinks in the system and the school district can't solve many of them.

r013nt0 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

If you’re going to be a jerk to even the people who were the most die-hard Sanders supporters D&D is about to become completely insufferable. I’ll let you fight all the left center battles on your own, because what’s the point.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm trying to point out a key flaw in your assumption. According to even conservative estimates, large percentages of people have no savings or retirement plan.

Business Insider wrote:

Respondents' self-assessments of how their retirement planning is going also varied by age. Only 26% of 18–29 year olds perceived their retirement savings as being on track. Even among non-retirees over 60, fewer than half — 45% — said their plans were on track.

And I guarantee you those numbers are high, because surveys like this never take into account the extremely poor and extremely wealthy. Most of us don't, because it's a fundamental flaw in the data we are given (Hey, my current read The Uncounted is already coming in handy).

Think back on all the times you've heard statistics about people living paycheck to paycheck, about how people don't have enough to pay for a single medical emergency, etc. Those people aren't saving money -they have none to save- and their jobs do not provide a 401k. And even it did, they wouldn't have the money to contribute.

Anyway, not trying to be a jerk. Just trying to point out that marginalized groups are not being considered.

I recognize you’re not trying to be a jerk and I wasn’t trying to be either. I should have clarified that by everyone I meant everyone with investment savings which is tens of millions more people than just the 1 percent. I agree that the stock market is more than the economy, but it is still important for the vast majority of the middle class too.

In regards to savings, there’s plenty American society could do to spur savings. But we also as a culture have embraced mindless consumer spending too. I recognize some households are scraping every penny, but for many others there are lots of ways they could cut costs and start saving. But that’s probably a topic better suited for the “saving money” thread in Everything Else.

lunchbox12682 wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
Badferret wrote:

This shift visualization map is great.

There will be so much to unpack from this election.

For instance, I'm super curious about the SC 1 race. The Charleston/Low Country area did see a big "Whole Foods" blue shift but yet, the 18 blue wave Democrat, Joe Cunningham lost his election bid vs the candidate he beat in 18.

The best early take I have seen is that Trump at the head of the ticket was the best of both worlds for down ballot Republicans. His cultist came out in droves, and the LP Republicans were able to vote against Trump at the top of the ticket and still vote R down ticket.

Obviously the big other trend nationwide is softness with the Hispanic/LatinX voters.

Probably the biggest question of all does the cult/Q block survive in big enough numbers. Historically, populist/racist movements have down well for a cycle or two and then just petered out. Normally, I would assume the same trend now, but this is the first time we've gone through one of the movements with the internet. I am heartened to see that Q has had a rough week.

ANy idea whats up with NY and Chicago on this map?

I saw another version of this without the annoying animations. Yes, it looks like Chicago and some of it's suburbs may have trended red from where they were. But that's deltas versus raw numbers so meh.

The explanation for NY and CA at the bottom of the WP is that the red shift is still over-represented in those two places because there are still a lot of absentee ballots to count. Not sure if that explains Chicago as well but wouldn't be surprised.

peanut3141 wrote:
BadKen wrote:

ESPECIALLY now that we have worked out a lot of the kinks in remote learning thanks to COVID-19. It would likely cost less in terms of infrastructure and reach more people than physical classes ever could.

That discussion probably doesn't belong in the 2020 election topic. :D

Yikes, this is completely opposite my experience. My son, nieces, and nephews are struggling greatly with remote learning. The comraderie and positive peer pressure in education is real and without physical proximity, it's greatly diminished. And they're the ones with better-than-average situations.

My wife is also teaching elementary school remotely this year and the challenges she faces are intense. Many of her students don't have any adult oversight to help them when they struggle with technology or emotions. In fact, a lot of the older ones in middle and high school are having to help their younger relatives as best they can. Many are having such basic issues as a lack of electricity and internet connectivity. At least with traditional schooling once you get children to the school, you can look after all their needs. Free/low cost breakfast and lunch is just the start. When disadvantaged kids are stuck at home, they're still subject to all those obstacles and it makes their learning even more challenging.

This aligns with my experience. My nieces and nephews have the distance-learning program provided by their school plus a full-time stay-at-home mom plus their retired grandmother tag-teaming to supplement it as best they can, and they're still struggling compared to in-person schooling. I shudder to think what it's like for impoverished children in households with two working parents and spotty Internet access.

Distance learning will likely always be a poor substitute for in-person learning at best, but what we have right now isn't even close to the best version of what distance learning could be. We're still grappling to fully comprehend the scope of its limitations; claiming that we have "worked out the kinks" after 2/3 of a semester of trying is beyond optimistic and into the realm of the naïve.

hbi2k wrote:
peanut3141 wrote:
BadKen wrote:

ESPECIALLY now that we have worked out a lot of the kinks in remote learning thanks to COVID-19. It would likely cost less in terms of infrastructure and reach more people than physical classes ever could.

That discussion probably doesn't belong in the 2020 election topic. :D

Yikes, this is completely opposite my experience. My son, nieces, and nephews are struggling greatly with remote learning. The comraderie and positive peer pressure in education is real and without physical proximity, it's greatly diminished. And they're the ones with better-than-average situations.

My wife is also teaching elementary school remotely this year and the challenges she faces are intense. Many of her students don't have any adult oversight to help them when they struggle with technology or emotions. In fact, a lot of the older ones in middle and high school are having to help their younger relatives as best they can. Many are having such basic issues as a lack of electricity and internet connectivity. At least with traditional schooling once you get children to the school, you can look after all their needs. Free/low cost breakfast and lunch is just the start. When disadvantaged kids are stuck at home, they're still subject to all those obstacles and it makes their learning even more challenging.

This aligns with my experience. Distance learning will likely always be a poor substitute for in-person learning at best, but what we have right now isn't even the best, most optimized version of what distance learning could be. We haven't even come close to "working out the kinks," and claiming that we have after 2/3 of a semester of trying is beyond naïve.

Right. Sorry BadKen, but just no.

Natus wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

and calling for the downfall of America.

That never happened, but do go on.

Seeing people interpret anything that happened in protests as a call for the downfall of america all i can think of is this:

IMAGE(https://i0.wp.com/theblackwallsttimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/screen-shot-2017-09-30-at-1-40-31-pm.png?fit=966%2C917&ssl=1&w=640)

hbi2k wrote:
peanut3141 wrote:
BadKen wrote:

ESPECIALLY now that we have worked out a lot of the kinks in remote learning thanks to COVID-19. It would likely cost less in terms of infrastructure and reach more people than physical classes ever could.

That discussion probably doesn't belong in the 2020 election topic. :D

Yikes, this is completely opposite my experience. My son, nieces, and nephews are struggling greatly with remote learning. The comraderie and positive peer pressure in education is real and without physical proximity, it's greatly diminished. And they're the ones with better-than-average situations.

My wife is also teaching elementary school remotely this year and the challenges she faces are intense. Many of her students don't have any adult oversight to help them when they struggle with technology or emotions. In fact, a lot of the older ones in middle and high school are having to help their younger relatives as best they can. Many are having such basic issues as a lack of electricity and internet connectivity. At least with traditional schooling once you get children to the school, you can look after all their needs. Free/low cost breakfast and lunch is just the start. When disadvantaged kids are stuck at home, they're still subject to all those obstacles and it makes their learning even more challenging.

This aligns with my experience. My nieces and nephews have the distance-learning program provided by their school plus a full-time stay-at-home mom plus their retired grandmother tag-teaming to supplement it as best they can, and they're still struggling compared to in-person schooling. I shudder to think what it's like for impoverished children in households with two working parents and spotty Internet access.

Distance learning will likely always be a poor substitute for in-person learning at best, but what we have right now isn't even close to the best version of what distance learning could be. We're still grappling to fully comprehend the scope of its limitations; claiming that we have "worked out the kinks" after 2/3 of a semester of trying is beyond optimistic and into the realm of the naïve.

Distance learning works...when he school system is properly set up for it. For example, the school my daughters go to requires you purchase an iPad. All lesson plans and homework are available through the iPad (as well as on paper). Parents can easily see marks and communicate with the teachers and administration. However, it has taken the school the better part of 10 years to get to that point. They have spent loads of $$$ on the internet infrastructure, have experts in lesson planning and teaching to support the teachers and the students with IT support. It is also semi-private and costs $4k a year per child.

It also requires the students be ready to do online teaching. They be motivated to pay attention to the teacher when watching on their iPad at home. They have support at home with parents who can help. They have internet at home that has the bandwidth and data cap that comes along with at-home learning. That the living situation is such that you can have more than one kids at home, at the same time, in e-learning and not have them distracting each other.

And the money for an iPad.