recogitare.com

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 11:08 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 8:38 pm Maher simply promotes the way Trump is framing the situation. You believe him.

I don't know how to tell you this, but the text that you posted supports Trump's framing, and my framing, and Maher's framing.

Oh, horseshit. I guess Dr Cornel West is really Carrot Top.

I'd rather watch this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoDh5Fz ... qNqv-XWm92

I try to avoid clicking on a link unless I have some idea what I'll find when I get there.


Anyway, at this point, if I were betting with my head, I would be betting on Trump. That saddens me, but I see an awful lot of confidence among right wingers lately, and I see opportunities lost for Harris.

It is my belief that if she had stood up a few months ago and said

"Males shouldn't be allowed to play in girls' sports." And
"Abortion should be illegal in the third trimester except in cases where it is necessary to save the mother's life," and
"My administration will not support any payments to individuals for reparations related to their ancestors' slavery."

If she had said those things, I believe the election would be over. Trump would have no chance. She didn't. As a result, Donald Trump may very well return to the White House.

And if she believes those unpopular positions, then she should stand up for them and speak her conscience. As one candidate whose name I forget once said, "I would rather be right than President." I had great respect for Walter Mondale who courageously calling for fiscal responsibility. However, if she wants to be President, she should find a way to say "No, that's fucking ridiculous." without seeming like a flip-flopper.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 12:30 am I try to avoid clicking on a link unless I have some idea what I'll find when I get there.

It was an interesting panel on a "Politically Incorrect" episode from 1998. Dennis Miller, Arianna Huffington, Eric Idle, and Jeff Greenfield. Bill Maher had some pretty interesting mix of guests on that show sometimes.

Back to framing... framing bias can happen when people make decisions based on the way something is presented as opposed to based on facts themselves. Bias can be positive/gain or negative/loss.

Had I framed the Bill Maher link as a gain you would have no doubt watched it. But since I didn't frame it at all your cognitive bias presented clicking that link as a loss and so you didn't watch it.

Oh, and your errors in thinking will have no effect on the election.

President Bush wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 1:10 am Oh, and your errors in thinking will have no effect on the election.

I must agree. My influence and ability to persuade voters is limited. Well, more than that, it's nonexistent.

But come November, there will be a winner and a loser, and especially the people who wish those roles were reversed will really need to ask themselves how their candidate managed to lose.


As for Bill Maher back in 1998, when it was all over and Clinton's impeachment was done, and he was still President, I remember hearing Bill Maher say, "The American people decided that Ken Starr's questions were worse than Bill Clinton's lies, and that's a moral judgement."

He got it way back then, too.

TA might know the betting odds. That's probably better than polls.
Can't help it, it feels fake to me. Like something else is planned.
Can't fathom a pretty outcome. Or Vance, as dictator apparent.

If she wins, the back-patting about the first female will be hard to take...and her first lady dude.
None of it is digestible.

(gonna hack-up a hair-ball now)

stanky wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 3:05 am TA might know the betting odds. That's probably better than polls.

Th

I saw several right wing youtube videos crowing about prediction market jumps following the Fox interview.

I think these markets are highly manipulable, so they aren't much better than polls, but what I have seen shows about 60-40 for Trump.

And I don't know if the right wing videos I've seen are cherry picking specific markets. The videos I've seen refer to "prediction markets", without naming which ones.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 1:59 am

President Bush wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 1:10 am Oh, and your errors in thinking will have no effect on the election.

I must agree. My influence and ability to persuade voters is limited. Well, more than that, it's nonexistent.

But come November, there will be a winner and a loser...

I'm not so optimistic.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 12:30 am It is my belief that if she had stood up a few months ago and said

"Males shouldn't be allowed to play in girls' sports." And
"Abortion should be illegal in the third trimester except in cases where it is necessary to save the mother's life," and
"My administration will not support any payments to individuals for reparations related to their ancestors' slavery."

If she had said those things, I believe the election would be over. Trump would have no chance. She didn't. As a result, Donald Trump may very well return to the White House.

Nope. Utter baloney.

The voters to whom those are real issues are already voting Trump.

The only thing that causes a Trump victory is that more insane old cunts vote than people with a conscience.

stanky wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 3:05 am TA might know the betting odds. That's probably better than polls.

Trump has firmed a lot. The odds are now: Trump $1-53, Harris $2-50.

Luckily, it means nothing. Remember, Paddy Power was so convinced Hillary was winning they paid out early and cost themselves 4M Sterling.

Admin wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 4:31 pm

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 12:30 am It is my belief that if she had stood up a few months ago and said

"Males shouldn't be allowed to play in girls' sports." And
"Abortion should be illegal in the third trimester except in cases where it is necessary to save the mother's life," and
"My administration will not support any payments to individuals for reparations related to their ancestors' slavery."

If she had said those things, I believe the election would be over. Trump would have no chance. She didn't. As a result, Donald Trump may very well return to the White House.

Nope. Utter baloney.

The voters to whom those are real issues are already voting Trump.

Unfortunately, there's no good way to determine an answer. If we had money, we might be able to do focus groups or some such that might give us a hint, but we don't, so we're left with speculation and hunches.

What I, and Bill Maher, think is that you're wrong about the effect on elections.

The way I see American elections these days is that there are some people who vote Republican no matter what. There are some people who vote Democratic no matter what. Those votes are unreachable. This year, there is a third block, which is the hard core "never Trump" voters. There are folks like Liz Cheney who will vote for Kamala Harris despite being more closely ideologically aligned with Trump, but they'll vote against him because of his personality flaws and/or dictatorial tendencies. That's a much smaller block, but those votes are also unreachable.

However, if you add up all of those unreachable votes, they don't add up to 50% of the electorate on either side. There's still an undecided middle which will determine the outcome of the election.

So what do you think will make the difference for those people? You've heard what Bill Maher and I think about it, but if we're wrong, what is actually the sticking point that prevents them from picking one side or the other?

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 5:25 pmSo what do you think will make the difference for those people? You've heard what Bill Maher and I think about it, but if we're wrong, what is actually the sticking point that prevents them from picking one side or the other?

I think your biggest problem is the vast number of people who don't vote.

Holding the election on a Tuesday is crazy, but that's America.