@zeke5123's banner p

zeke5123


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 09 06:18:01 UTC

				

User ID: 1827

zeke5123


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 09 06:18:01 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1827

Doesn’t it presuppose that generally liking people is mutable and specifically liking someone romantically is mutable?

Clearly there is an evolutionary adaption to prefer in group. There is even a stronger evolutionary almost imperative to prefer opposite sex partners. The idea that wired desired is easily mutable is highly questionable.

Also the whole thing assumes utilitarianism is not applicable.

Either no one saw it or VBM has basically re created machine politics. I’m guessing the latter.

I’m not sure I classify as wealthy but I’m not bad off. It pains me that there is a P-A problem when it comes to politics and big corporations. I think we might start seeing anti-ESG funds to try to control the P-A problem. Those funds will be successful if my thesis (ie the woke stuff is bad for the bottom line) is correct.

I do wonder if Delaware should revisit ultra vires rules. At a certain point, taking a position on K-3 education is so outside Disney’s core business it is absurd. Of course, anyone will make the argument “good PR helps bottom line” but I don’t think people truly believe that in egregious areas — especially where the PR is likely harmful.

I don’t see how ballot harvesting isn’t a concern. Not in the “fake ballots” but in a “kind of quid pro quo not really secret ballot old times machine” way

Well maybe don’t be too embarrassed. 2000 mules combined harvesting with fake ballots. That seems silly to me.

I would say in some states (family member voting isn’t what most have in mind). Also I believe that some states that allow harvesting require hoops that limit the general usefulness.

With that said, my objection (and many others objection) isn’t necessarily that ballot harvesting is introducing false ballots, but instead that ballot harvesting permits a kind of quid pro quo that the secret ballot was intended to prevent. I’m not saying people are obvious about it but you have activists target areas you know vote X; those activists help people in the community, then come election time they go to the people they help (probably with the candidates name on their person) and ask “hey have you voted — I’d be happy to help you vote and to make it easier I can drop of the ballot myself.”

Now is that fraud? No. Is it even quid pro quo? Not necessarily. But is it highly questionable? I think so.

Minimum changes is to make that illegal. The reason why it is different is that it changes (1) the ease of which someone can cast a ballot (I might not be willing to go to the precinct but if I don’t really have to do anything) and (2) the activist actually sees who you vote for which puts more pressure into the quid pro quo.

In short, I think it is a terrible process that should only be legal for immediate family members.

I thought you couldn’t fill it out; I thought some states allowed leeway to seeing someone fill out the ballot.

So I don’t know if it is right, but it seems like in the national house overall the republicans are up 6% (not sure if the abc data I looked at awhile ago was updated properly). That is actually pretty good.

Is the conventional wisdom wrong? Perhaps the republicans managed to lose a lot of very tight races which made the overall margin look unimpressive even if the Dems lost pretty heavily?

The margin will shrink as California fills in more but does seem like republicans will still have a sizable lead.

Agreed. The outcome was small. But if you had asked the Republicans pre election +6 nationally, they would’ve assumed a red wave. It’s interesting despite crushing overall the wave didn’t occur.

It is an interesting dynamic and not really discussed.

Part of it may also reflect an incorrect census (the census screw up cost southern states some additional districts) and post census migration by red to red states like Florida.

It’s laughable. Trump could’ve fired the lockdown supporters that enabled everything (eg Fauci, Birx) but did nothing. DeSantis took the arrows from the persons Trump failed to fire. Florida did just fine for an old state.

Also funny how trump claims people moved to Florida for the sunshine. I guess the sunshine changed in the last few years.

Would be best for the country if he died and honestly that’s the best choice for trump’s ego.

Is what he said untrue? It’s true that Dems claimed “democracy was on the ballot” because of people they helped nominate.

So either they didn’t believe democracy was on the line or they were willing to sacrifice democracy to gain a small electoral advantage.

Pray tell what are dangerous things? Please articulate what you mean as opposed to hint at what you mean.

To most people, that isn’t dangerous. I think your concept of risk is off quite a bit.

That makes it sound high. But what is the average risk of death? Also what is the increased risk of death of sitting around doing nothing?

Finally what superspreader events were rural Coloradans doing?

  1. You are being an ass. One can know the risk of death for an average 55 year old for getting covid (pretty damn low). An interlocutor can bring up some stat (out of thin air with no cite) claiming it increases risk of death in a given year by 50%. Asking what the baseline of death is for a given year at 55 is different from understanding conditional on getting covid what the lethality risk was (ie very low). Through trying to frame the discussion in a particular way, you are now trying to crow “you are making statements without knowing the facts.” No — I’m making that claim based on different criteria.

  2. Also, your concept is you can heavily mitigate the risk. The question is by mitigating that risk do you increase other risks. So I guess based on your “logic” if you are unable to answer that question your entire post shouldn’t have been stated.

  3. You still haven’t discussed the superspreader events rural Coloradans engaged in.

Ehh I don’t think libertarianism is especially Jewish. Hayek wasn’t Jewish. Locke wasn’t Jewish. Smith wasn’t Jewish.

Obviously libertarians have been influenced by Jews (eg Milton and David, Rothbard, Rand).

I really am struggling to make sense of this election. Every poll had the country deeply on the wrong track. Every poll by a large margin had economics as the number 1 issue with republicans crushing in that category. There wasn’t really anything for the Dems here.

Yet they seem to be doing very well relatively speaking.

I honestly think VBM has broken the system.

But that begs the question of why is there that obligation? What is the framework used to create the obligation and does the real effect of the obligation change the conclusion re the obligation?

For example, if the framework was utilitarian then the lack of joy limits the usefulness of the obligation.

Maybe. I guess you combine that with VBM?

It just seems odd — the country is in a terrible spot. Who votes for the incumbent?

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. My point is what people are saying is their priorities (which makes sense with how humans have operated) and who they are saying they trust about that issue (which also makes sense) is very different from who they appear to be voting for. That’s…just weird and hard to sense of.

But the candidate quality ignores the democrat candidate. I’m not saying Oz was a great candidate but Fetterman can’t complete sentences in a stressful environment.