Political Posts

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, whiskybravo said:

That’s a relief Mamdani will be no worse than Koch or Bloomberg.

Oh I didnt say that. He could be horrific.  Or he could be a non issue. But either way NY will survive and he will be gone (sooner if horrific, later of non issue)  

[whiskybravo]

14 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Its literally in the post.  According to Google.

 

14 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Its literally in the post.  According to Google.

The only data that I saw in your post was the number of Americans who identified as Italian.  Didn’t see how their voting for Trump by a significant margin would be anything other than one of many factors in the overall vote differential.

[whiskybravo]

1 minute ago, dwy000 said:

Oh I didnt say that. He could be horrific.  Or he could be a non issue. But either way NY will survive and he will be gone (sooner if horrific, later of non issue)  

I actually agree with that.

[dwy000]

Just now, whiskybravo said:

 

The only data that I saw in your post was the number of Americans who identified as Italian.  Didn’t see how their voting for Trump by a significant margin would be anything other than one of many factors in the overall vote differential.

Thats just....math. if Italians are heavily for Trump by like 12% or more that's a greater number than the total votes Trump won by. 

[whiskybravo]

2 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Thats just....math. if Italians are heavily for Trump by like 12% or more that's a greater number than the total votes Trump won by. 

That would be counterweighted by demographic groups whose net vote differentials went in the Harris direction 

[dwy000]

2 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

That would be counterweighted by demographic groups whose net vote differentials went in the Harris direction 

Exactly!  Which is why I wanted to see the data and see what direction other nationalities went. 

[Cigarbutt]

Time is a limited resource but the above exchanges (and most of this thread) meet the threshold for limited participation in this discussion (opinion).

When making decisions, 'we' move in a spectrum between purely evidence-based 'information' and purely gut feeling-based 'information'.

It's interesting to note that the growing political polarization issue appears to be moving in tandem with a secular move in the spectrum towards intuition (away from factual analysis). This is actually supported by well done work (that tends to come from disconnected and well educated people who tend to rely more on the factual side of the spectrum:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02136-2#:~:text=These economic and social upheavals,Table 3 for illustrative examples).

-----

TLDR summary:

The recent secular rise (to post Gilded-Age levels) in polarization and inequality that very recently accelerated has been associated with a move away from rational presentation of facts with reliable data to personal feel and intuition.

i thought it was interesting to note that what has been happening widely (including in the institutional Congress) in the US has also been happening in this (investment) Board.

A fascinating aspect is the growing distance from moderation makes it feel (intuition) like people are not even speaking the same language.

[whiskybravo]

2 hours ago, dwy000 said:

Exactly!  Which is why I wanted to see the data and see what direction other nationalities went. 

Well you could more than consume that differential just with blacks (82/17) and unmarried women (61/38).  Overwhelm it really.

Edited August 17, 2025 by whiskybravo

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, whiskybravo said:

Well you could more than consume that differential with just with blacks (82/17) and unmarried women (61/38).  Overwhelm it really.

Except theres overlap.  You can have black Italians and unmarried Italian women. Everyone falls into a ton of categories. Thats why I wanted to see it by nationality.

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, dwy000 said:

I was hoping not to assume anything. Thats what the numbers would imply though if the Italian vote was so disproportionately one directional. 

And what if other demographics are mostly for Democrats?  

[Gregmal]

Well for starters I think it’s obvious that when data or “trusted sources” become obviously corrupted by the lying and dishonest experts, academics, medical professionals etc, for the purpose of pushing an agenda or controlling people whom take the typical “data” as gospel…that’s just a natural progression. I mean we all saw the spectacular consequences of the failures of the “data” presenters during Covid. But now they’re mad that they’re not taken seriously anymore and their rationale is that people don’t like facts anymore….lmfao 

Edited August 17, 2025 by Gregmal

[dwy000]

47 minutes ago, Sweet said:

And what if other demographics are mostly for Democrats?  

Thats exactly why I was asking for source of data.  I was hoping to see which way each nationality leaned.  Or if nationality takes a back seat to other demographics (age, education, religion, etc). 

[dwy000]

46 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Well for starters I think it’s obvious that when data or “trusted sources” become obviously corrupted by the lying and dishonest experts, academics, medical professionals etc, for the purpose of pushing an agenda or controlling people whom take the typical “data” as gospel…that’s just a natural progression. I mean we all saw the spectacular consequences of the failures of the “data” presenters during Covid. But now they’re mad that they’re not taken seriously anymore and their rationale is that people don’t like facts anymore….lmfao 

This is exactly why I was calling out opinion vs facts.  The minute we put ideology over science and facts we have agreed to be manipulated.  Convincing people that scientists and doctors are corrupt but then following TV personalities and social media influencers as truth is failing as society. 

Edited August 17, 2025 by dwy000

[changegonnacome]

US, Russia Agreed on Ukraine Security Pledges, Witkoff Says

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-17/rubio-says-ukraine-ceasefire-still-on-table-as-trump-seeks-deal?sref=7zqHEcxJ

 

If true this is quite a big deal........would like to see Russia confirm the same.....Witkoff has a habit, like his boss, of being heavily promotional when in front of a TV camera.

 

Call me skeptical....the fact Trump wasn't waving this around at the Press Conference after the summit is very suspect......and let's be frank a US security guarantee is not what it used to be!

[Gregmal]

Just now, dwy000 said:

This is exactly why I was calling out opinion vs facts.  The minute we put ideology over science and facts we have agreed to be manipulated.  Convincing people that scientists and doctors are corrupt but then following TV personalities and social media influencers as truth is failing as society.  The same people taking ivermectin and not listening to doctors on vaccines sure dont seem to feel that way when they get cancer or diabetes. 

What does this have to do with what’s the gist of the discussion? Someone questioning medical experts whom said don’t go to the gym, or hid data and told us vaccines “stopped the spread” and presented us “their facts/data”, backed it up by studies from “their peers” and had media outlets sharing “their agenda” pump it all out to the masses, is wise; and can certainly be done without any taking of ivermectin or a blind following of social media people. This in fact, is why the people pushing “their facts” lost credibility; not because people are averse to facts, but because they create this narrative, self righteous and all, that anyone whom doesn’t accept their facts and sources(often grossly biased), blindly, is an ivermectin inhaling mouth breather in a red hat. 
 

As has been discussed, again, dozens of times here over the years, there are many, many different ways educate oneself; using many different sources or inflation gathering exercises, but the academic type always get mad that the answer doesn’t seem to be some bureaucrat published study/analysis/ report….

[dwy000]

Just now, Gregmal said:

What does this have to do with what’s the gist of the discussion? Someone questioning medical experts whom said don’t go to the gym, or hid data and told us vaccines “stopped the spread” and presented us “their facts/data”, backed it up by studies from “their peers” and had media outlets sharing “their agenda” pump it all out to the masses, is wise; and can certainly be done without any taking of ivermectin or a blind following of social media people. This in fact, is why the people pushing “their facts” lost credibility; not because people are averse to facts, but because they create this narrative, self righteous and all, that anyone whom doesn’t accept their facts and sources(often grossly biased), blindly, is an ivermectin inhaling mouth breather in a red hat. 
 

As has been discussed, again, dozens of times here over the years, there are many, many different ways educate oneself; using many different sources or inflation gathering exercises, but the academic type always get mad that the answer doesn’t seem to be some bureaucrat published study/analysis/ report….

And this is exactly why we should be asking for data and sources and evidence instead of just believing people who state opinions like they are fact. 

[Gregmal]

27 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

And this is exactly why we should be asking for data and sources and evidence instead of just believing people who state opinions like they are fact. 

Which is fine, but that’s a you problem not a me problem. I’d generally want to go out at verify my own conclusions rather than have people feed me “their” facts. I don’t think I’ve once in my life asked somebody to cite a source or feed me one. If I care enough, I do it on my own.
 

So if someone wants to make a statement I really don’t have any issues and if I do it’s on me to go find the truth. Otherwise we ll look like all those covid chumps or the MSM people; recall the Harris Trump debate where the ABC guy, the “fact checker” kept heckling Trump about a crime stat…citing some other blowhard bureaucrat data point, then a week later they find out Trump was correct? Regardless of who’s correct you can see the many flaws throughout…some media hack presenter having a bias, some flawed data collection process, heck even as is common, subjective reporting of actual crimes from the various law enforcement agencies…..any of those things can be manipulated to “validate” an agenda or a claim, but yea, those are dominantly the sources for facts that certain types like to use. 

Edited August 17, 2025 by Gregmal

[John Hjorth]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

US, Russia Agreed on Ukraine Security Pledges, Witkoff Says

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-17/rubio-says-ukraine-ceasefire-still-on-table-as-trump-seeks-deal?sref=7zqHEcxJ

 

If true this is quite a big deal........would like to see Russia confirm the same.....Witkoff has a habit, like his boss, of being heavily promotional when in front of a TV camera.

 

Call me skeptical....the fact Trump wasn't waving this around at the Press Conference after the summit is very suspect......and let's be frank a US security guarantee is not what it used to be!

 

You got it wrong, because you don't get the full picture. You have to look up and listen to, what happened in Brussels today, Sunday. Words caught on video by Vlodomyr Zelenskij and Ursula von der Leyen.

 

Absolutely unpredictable, what now will happen in Washington tomorrow Monday, Putin Monday gets nothing of what he in Alaska tried to convice POTUS to 'sell' to Zelenskyj, and rest of Europe.

 

[To me personally, all good].

 

War just continues.

 

My best guess is POTUS is hit publicly by a cerebral hemorrhage [brain fart] again. [lol - At least a Monday to look forward to. ]

Edited August 17, 2025 by John Hjorth

[dwy000]

31 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Which is fine, but that’s a you problem not a me problem. I’d generally want to go out at verify my own conclusions rather than have people feed me “their” facts. I don’t think I’ve once in my life asked somebody to cite a source or feed me one. If I care enough, I do it on my own.
 

You're the one who inserted themselves into this discussion despite it being a "me" problem and you not having time to waste on it. 

 

If someone can point out their source it saves a hell of a lot of time.  Not only does it legitimize the comment it makes them that much more trustworthy next time. And if there is no source or their source is questionable, I know I can probably throw out the conclusion as opinion right away without wasting my own time on research.  And it makes me take anything else they say with a grain of salt. 

[Gregmal]

22 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

You're the one who inserted themselves into this discussion despite it being a "me" problem and you not having time to waste on it. 

lol as some of us have noticed, there seems to be a redundancy problem with you. As I stated before, I responded to the OP because it was rather stunning that you seemed to question the notion that Trump has strong support amongst Italians. Turns out I guess it’s just another case of the “citation” police. You’d make a good university professor for sure.

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

Which is fine, but that’s a you problem not a me problem. I’d generally want to go out at verify my own conclusions rather than have people feed me “their” facts. I don’t think I’ve once in my life asked somebody to cite a source or feed me one. If I care enough, I do it on my own.
 

So if someone wants to make a statement I really don’t have any issues and if I do it’s on me to go find the truth. Otherwise we ll look like all those covid chumps or the MSM people; 

 

Hit the nail on the head for the public.

 

You have this situation where the expert class, academic class, and many politicians have outright deceived the public for years. All aided by the MSM.

 

If one thing has been proven the last few years - you can't trust our trusted institutions at all. The average American has figured out it's foolish to trust them after all the lies - so rebuilding trust in the media and institutions is going to take a long, long time.

[Spekulatius]

20 hours ago, whiskybravo said:

Agreed.  Is it really so unreasonable for Russians to govern the Russian speaking portion of the Donbas.

It is idiotic to assume that every Russian speaking person want to live in Russia. Most speak Russian and  Ukrainian  anyways.

[Spekulatius]

5 hours ago, Cigarbutt said:

Time is a limited resource but the above exchanges (and most of this thread) meet the threshold for limited participation in this discussion (opinion).

When making decisions, 'we' move in a spectrum between purely evidence-based 'information' and purely gut feeling-based 'information'.

It's interesting to note that the growing political polarization issue appears to be moving in tandem with a secular move in the spectrum towards intuition (away from factual analysis). This is actually supported by well done work (that tends to come from disconnected and well educated people who tend to rely more on the factual side of the spectrum:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02136-2#:~:text=These economic and social upheavals,Table 3 for illustrative examples).

-----

TLDR summary:

The recent secular rise (to post Gilded-Age levels) in polarization and inequality that very recently accelerated has been associated with a move away from rational presentation of facts with reliable data to personal feel and intuition.

i thought it was interesting to note that what has been happening widely (including in the institutional Congress) in the US has also been happening in this (investment) Board.

A fascinating aspect is the growing distance from moderation makes it feel (intuition) like people are not even speaking the same language.

Thats quite an interesting paper especially since it seems that the EMI score seems to predict future inequality. That would imply that inequality is bound to increase further.

[Gregmal]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

 

Hit the nail on the head for the public.

 

You have this situation where the expert class, academic class, and many politicians have outright deceived the public for years. All aided by the MSM.

 

If one thing has been proven the last few years - you can't trust our trusted institutions at all. The average American has figured out it's foolish to trust them after all the lies - so rebuilding trust in the media and institutions is going to take a long, long time.

Yup, and this is the deadly irony of the "I like to judge people or content by the sources"....it's the one thread many of the folks that always fall for it have in common. Their bias is in their predispositions and what they view as a "valid" source. Some hack journalists with the NYT are valid or hey maybe a bunch of never leave university dudes who sit in a lab spending grant money that all circle jerk to the same ideology....unquestionably valid and reliable....

 

To be fair I used to think like that too..that a "credible" source could provide inference, or even the opposite, that someone posting a shitty source was detrimental to their process...eventually it just became obvious, not to mention soooo easy given the availability of resources these days, to just do the work myself if I became captivated enough on a specific subject. Crazy or not, pretty much any subject can be vetted out through dozens of different methods in barely any time at all...You dont need the NYT, Fox News, The Guardian, WSJ, etc..at all really anymore. Sure, they can confirm things, but theyre merely part of the process, one input, out of many, because theyve outed themselves as being prone to disgraceful bias and propaganda pushing...so the joke really is on the people thinking that these things by themselves are valid sources. 

[dwy000]

22 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Yup, and this is the deadly irony of the "I like to judge people or content by the sources"....it's the one thread many of the folks that always fall for it have in common. Their bias is in their predispositions and what they view as a "valid" source. Some hack journalists with the NYT are valid or hey maybe a bunch of never leave university dudes who sit in a lab spending grant money that all circle jerk to the same ideology....unquestionably valid and reliable....

 

To be fair I used to think like that too..that a "credible" source could provide inference, or even the opposite, that someone posting a shitty source was detrimental to their process...eventually it just became obvious, not to mention soooo easy given the availability of resources these days, to just do the work myself if I became captivated enough on a specific subject. Crazy or not, pretty much any subject can be vetted out through dozens of different methods in barely any time at all...You dont need the NYT, Fox News, The Guardian, WSJ, etc..at all really anymore. Sure, they can confirm things, but theyre merely part of the process, one input, out of many, because theyve outed themselves as being prone to disgraceful bias and propaganda pushing...so the joke really is on the people thinking that these things by themselves are valid sources. 

Except now these "sources" that youre cultivating through all need to be vetted because at least with the NYT or Fox News you know the bias.  Pulling info randomly from the internet is hardly a better source of truth. What that leads to is people questioning science and medicine because Becky on TikTok has some interesting ideas with lemon juice.

 

Or at worst you believe info that isnt true. For example, the Italian voting.  Its likely true.  Theres anecdotes that support it.  But is there accurate data?  Not that I've seen. Which is why I asked for a source. 

Edited August 18, 2025 by dwy000