Mid Term Elections- Lessons Learned

[doctalaughs]

This article does a great job....of highlighting the white privilege that exists at management level in corporations. What it doesn't show is that DEI or AA toward URM are preventing Asian advancement.

​

And our analysis found that white professionals are about twice as likely to be promoted into management as their Asian American counterparts.​

Indeed, your thesis that AA toward URM is the problem falls apart when one sees that whites have double the promotion rate. Actually, lack of DEI towards Asians sounds like the issue.



Great argument to make sure that the most disadvantaged URMs who need the most help are getting it. Not an argument to do away with race-conscious admissions.



Again, let's look at what you wrote:

​

I feel bad for poor white and Asian kids of average ability who have very low chances in education, workplaces etc today even when they do put in 3x the work​

To me, I think "very low" means like 10%, but even if I'm being charitable to you and say it's 50%, are you telling me that only 1 out of 2 poor white/Asian kids of average ability, who are putting in 3x the work [of presumably all those underachieving URMs you're referring to], and thus probably have decent GPAs/SATs.....are getting into college or getting jobs after graduating?

Because feel free to clarify what you wrote before moving on to defend something you didn't write using a bunch of random links.

But wrt to that last link, no one's disputing the relative boost that can come from race, but you highlighting "TWICE the boost" doesn't really hit so hard in relation to the absolute numbers (like the more than double population representation in colleges or the fact that the Asian matriculant percentage has still been going up at Harvard over the years).

View attachment 362855

View attachment 362856

One of the lowest represented (and likely poorer) Asian subgroups (Hmong) still has a higher college enrollment rate than the average college enrollment of *all* Hispanics.

Ok I’m going to let this go because I don’t see a point into getting into the same argument with you again. You can say the last word after this but:

1. Colleges are not all the same. As you know the earnings differ significantly for graduates of higher-ranked institutions compared to lower ones.

2. If you are ok with race counting for twice what poverty/hardship/class does, that speaks for itself.

Harvard and institutions like it have obviously largely obtained their goal of “race matching the demographics of the country” ; what they sacrificed in quality of graduates and rejecting fairness for individual applicants is pretty clear from the statistics in the lawsuits.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted875186]

This definitely was an example (at a major corporation, no less) where there was an initiative, honest debate, and push back. However, I suspect this is going to be one of those topics where you just 'no true scotsman' every example because, like I said earlier, you're incapable seeing anything even remotely related to DEI initiatives or AA through an objective lens.



You keep parroting the line about being ostracized and fired like it's a fact, but you haven't established that whatsoever. Just like you didn't establish jack when you said average white and Asian men have "very low chances" of going to college or getting a job.

And I didn't say everyone thought DEI training is superficial or stupid. I said the more reasonable opponents are simply capable of ignoring it instead of say turning it into a capital case.



I guess you've never heard trump give a speech before.

Or seen what this fine Florida politico believes

Matt Gaetz's support of racist 'Great Replacement' theory resurfaces following Buffalo shooting

Matt Gaetz's support of the racist "Great Replacement" theory resurfaced after a white supremacist adherent of the idea went on a racially motivated shooting spree...

www.google.com

The most popular cable news show host in America who's also one of the most anti-crt





That article was really, really poorly argued. On the first point that CRT is in our schools, the author stated that academics had published papers suggesting that certain components of CRT be incorporated into primary or secondary education, and pointed to state DOEs having websites that maybe had some allusions to concepts within CRT.....but you know what they didn't do? Actually give a bunch of examples of CRT being taught in primary and secondary education.

As far as history, the fact that the author of that article wants "structural" or "systemic racism" erased from the vocabulary of history teaching is, to me (and probably a ton of professional historians), the definition of preventing students from learning the [full] history of slavery, or Jim Crow, or the civil rights movement. Someone's mind has got to be truly warped to to think you can teach those things without giving the context that all levers of American society, both private and public, political and economic, had a role in propagating inequality, and that just because the institution ended doesn't mean structural disadvantages resolved overnight as well.

I agree, I read the article. It gave no actual evidence of what it claims, other than opinion, and points to some published stuff in the literature that somehow proves the authors claim about current day k-12 education. Pretty typical.

 

[vector2]

Ok I’m going to let this go because I don’t see a point into getting into the same argument with you again. You can say the last word after this but:

1. Colleges are not all the same. As you know the earnings differ significantly for graduates of higher-ranked institutions compared to lower ones.

2. If you are ok with race counting for twice what poverty/hardship/class does, that speaks for itself.

Right, so just to confirm, this statement you made before: "I feel bad for poor white and Asian kids of average ability who have very low chances in education, workplaces etc today even when they do put in 3x the work" ...is not actually factual. Like, you haven't supported that at all, especially in regard to the " 3x work" comment which implies a strong applicant regardless of socioeconomic status. If you want to change the topic now to specific rankings of institutions and how that affects income, that's a different discussion.

In regard to your number 2, if you can't comprehend that Harvard's position is logical and ethically defensible when the near least represented, lowest SES Asians still have higher college enrollment rates than the average URM then I dunno what to tell you.

I think pretty much all the republicans oppose DEI policies and CRT in primary schools, despite democrats crying that it’s “not a real issue.”
You just happened to pick the most odious characters in the party that you could think of, to discredit the opposing viewpoint on a specific topic by association; which really isn’t an argument.

It wasn't an argument. It was an observation that the most overtly anti-crt anti-dei politicians and pundits also happen to be the biggest fearmongerers and proponents of white genocide theories. What you want to do with that observation is up to you.

This is from the article about Dave Rubin, the guy who talks in that Prager U propaganda video that blade posted earlier. Rubin voted third party in 2016, and then:

 

[BLADEMDA]

I voted for Donald Trump in 2020 like Rubin. Because we only have 2 people to pick from in an election we sometimes get stuck in voting for very questionable individuals. This doesn’t invalidate Rubin’s arguments about the woke left nor does it make 70 million people stupid or evil. I would understand FFP being forced to vote for some candidates that I would never consider. Again, that doesn’t invalidate his arguments about the woke left either.

This nation is on the wrong path concerning race, gender and how we view equity. Scotus is going to finally fix affirmative action but the other issues remain. We need to look at people as individuals based on merit and not seem them as groups based on skin color. In my opinion, the woke left has taken us back decades in our goal to become a color blind society. These days what matters most, yes most, is not individual work effort or achievement but race. That’s simply wrong in a society with people from all races. As we approach 2023, the USA is still the least racist nation on the planet and the most diverse. Rather than move away from race as a defining factor in both academia and corporate America, it has become the single most important aspect of a person’s chances of advancement. Equity now means inequity for the vast majority of Americans.

 

[nimbus]

Since this thread is called “Mid Term Elections-lesson learned”, any opinions on Trump running again and being the leading Republican candidate for 2024? He would like to terminate all rules and regulations including those in the Constitution.


“So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential election results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

 

[nimbus]

Speaking of boosts. Hopefully the next target of SFFA will be legacy admissions. Not sure why they did not start there.

As Supreme Court Considers Affirmative Action's Future, Legacy Admissions Also Need To End

That means not favoring students based on race, yes—nor on the basis of connections or family wealth A couple years ago, the litigation that followed the FBI’s “Varsity Blues” investigation brought to light the fact that the University of Southern California minutely tracks the giving of affluent...

www.forbes.com

“After all, defenders of affirmative action have a point when they argue that legacy admissions give special treatment to the already-advantaged. Harvard data, for instance, reveal that the institution admits one-third of legacy applicants. Since the school’s overall acceptance rate was 6% in 2014, family connections boost admissions chances by more than 500%. This amounts to the worst kind of stacked deck, one stacked in favor of the fortunate.

Legacy admissions should be ended — period. College officials complain that such a shift will make it tougher for them to shake down alumni for donations, but it’s not clear why that justifies violating equal opportunity in order to aid the fortunate.

It’s also time for college officials to stop padding college coffers by selling seats to the kids and grandkids of wealthy donors. At Harvard, connections to a big donor boost a student’s chances of admission by a factor of nine. The Harvard lawsuit illuminated some of the unsavory ways in which campus officials shake down potential donors. In one revealing note, a high-ranking campus official observed that one applicant’s family, which had given Harvard $8.7 million over time, had lost its wealth. The official sighed, “I don’t see a significant opportunity for further major gifts,” but added that there was “an art collection which conceivably could come our way.”

 

[Southpaw]

It’s also time for college officials to stop padding college coffers by selling seats to the kids and grandkids of wealthy donors. At Harvard, connections to a big donor boost a student’s chances of admission by a factor of nine. The Harvard lawsuit illuminated some of the unsavory ways in which campus officials shake down potential donors. In one revealing note, a high-ranking campus official observed that one applicant’s family, which had given Harvard $8.7 million over time, had lost its wealth. The official sighed, “I don’t see a significant opportunity for further major gifts,” but added that there was “an art collection which conceivably could come our way.”

This sounds like corruption if you ask me. I do find it interesting that Republicans (including the Republican majority SCOTUS) feel its time to get rid of AA but all these legacy admissions are perfectly fine and okay. I'm sure as soon as AA is finished the Republicans will get right on that.

 

[nimbus]

This sounds like corruption if you ask me. I do find it interesting that Republicans (including the Republican majority SCOTUS) feel its time to get rid of AA but all these legacy admissions are perfectly fine and okay. I'm sure as soon as AA is finished the Republicans will get right on that.

It’s affirmative action for rich white kids so why would they get rid of that?

 

[Southpaw]

It’s affirmative action for rich white kids so why would they get rid of that?

They won’t. I was being facetious. Was hoping that given my history my delivery would come across as intended. Of course, online it never does.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

This sounds like corruption if you ask me. I do find it interesting that Republicans (including the Republican majority SCOTUS) feel its time to get rid of AA but all these legacy admissions are perfectly fine and okay. I'm sure as soon as AA is finished the Republicans will get right on that.

I would say legacy admissions is a problem with both parties. I am personally against them and I have not heard the right defend them. I think you are pointing to the hypocrisy of the right, but missing the glaring hypocrisy of universities (90% left) expressing equity virtues but not practicing them (when it comes to money from donors). Neither side has a monopoly on hypocrisy. I find it interesting that the government gives so much aide to the universities, bc that is what student loans are... money funneled mostly to the university.

 

[doctalaughs]

Speaking of boosts. Hopefully the next target of SFFA will be legacy admissions. Not sure why they did not start there.

As Supreme Court Considers Affirmative Action's Future, Legacy Admissions Also Need To End

That means not favoring students based on race, yes—nor on the basis of connections or family wealth A couple years ago, the litigation that followed the FBI’s “Varsity Blues” investigation brought to light the fact that the University of Southern California minutely tracks the giving of affluent...

www.forbes.com

“After all, defenders of affirmative action have a point when they argue that legacy admissions give special treatment to the already-advantaged. Harvard data, for instance, reveal that the institution admits one-third of legacy applicants. Since the school’s overall acceptance rate was 6% in 2014, family connections boost admissions chances by more than 500%. This amounts to the worst kind of stacked deck, one stacked in favor of the fortunate.

Legacy admissions should be ended — period. College officials complain that such a shift will make it tougher for them to shake down alumni for donations, but it’s not clear why that justifies violating equal opportunity in order to aid the fortunate.

It’s also time for college officials to stop padding college coffers by selling seats to the kids and grandkids of wealthy donors. At Harvard, connections to a big donor boost a student’s chances of admission by a factor of nine. The Harvard lawsuit illuminated some of the unsavory ways in which campus officials shake down potential donors. In one revealing note, a high-ranking campus official observed that one applicant’s family, which had given Harvard $8.7 million over time, had lost its wealth. The official sighed, “I don’t see a significant opportunity for further major gifts,” but added that there was “an art collection which conceivably could come our way.”

I am 100% for eliminating legacy admission preferences as well, just like racial preferences.

That being said, the “500%” boost in that article (the local student crimson) is a bit misleading. As I said before if you have a Harvard mother/father of course you are more likely going to be academically talented so that is a correlation without context, unlike what I quoted for African American race.

If you care about actual numbers they did logistical regression analysis in the lawsuit for academically similar students so you actually see the effects of “boosts” to chances based on various factors below.

But yes, both legacy and race should be banned totally.

 

[Neopolymath]

Whatever happened to compromise? How about 3 days PAID sick leave and 4 days unpaid if needed? That's the type of compromise that everyone could get behind because it makes no one happy.

In America someone has to win, objectively or optically. We can't have this compromise? That's being weak apparently.

 

[DirtDocMD]

It’s affirmative action for rich white kids so why would they get rid of that?

Where are these universities, with a bunch of White Republicans running the admissions departments??? Asking for a friend....

 

[pgg]

Where are these universities, with a bunch of White Republicans running the admissions departments??? Asking for a friend....

I'd guess most private universities with religious founders fit that mold. BYU and Liberty come to mind.

 

[nimbus]

I'd guess most private universities with religious founders fit that mold. BYU and Liberty come to mind.

While I agree, most of the Ivy League had religious founders a very long time ago.

 

[nimbus]

Where are these universities, with a bunch of White Republicans running the admissions departments??? Asking for a friend....

Money trumps all. Even in religious organizations, money and power trump God. Often God is just a means to that end.

 

[vector2]

In this day and age I shouldn't be surprised that Herschel "I can barely complete a full sentence and, oh btw, I payed for a trio of abortions even though I'm pro-life" Walker can still win near 50% of the vote, but I guess I still am a little.

Beyond GA and the midterms, I also think Walker doing this well also increases the odds that if trump can just button down his campaign, there's no reason he can't still win the primary.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

They closed the polls before the werewolves and vampires got out to vote.

 

[Agast]

They closed the polls before the werewolves and vampires got out to vote.

Actually, the problem is Walker identified as a werewolf which then alienated the rising vampire vote

 

[Ezekiel2517]

He forced a runoff

 

[BobLoblaw78]

View attachment 362952

In this day and age I shouldn't be surprised that Herschel "I can barely complete a full sentence and, oh btw, I payed for a trio of abortions even though I'm pro-life" Walker can still win near 50% of the vote, but I guess I still am a little.

Beyond GA and the midterms, I also think Walker doing this well also increases the odds that if trump can just button down his campaign, there's no reason he can't still win the primary.

Fetterman.

You must not have heard of him. Actually got elected w/o runoff. He supported abortion and hasn’t even had any.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

He forced a runoff

That is bad. He truly sounds cringey and like he was a terrible candidate from what little I know. I couldn’t imagine him in the “house” trying to do his job.

ICYMI, I remember one experienced politician (who did more than force a runoff in the senate) that did this so many times that it was more than a slip of the tongue. Seems much worse than a rookie athlete turned politician.

 

[vector2]

Fetterman.

You must not have heard of him. Actually got elected w/o runoff. He supported abortion and hasn’t even had any.

Nice "but but but what about this guy?" response. Much easier than actually defending Walker.

But sure, let's both sides it. Fetterman was already Lieutenant Governor of the state. He has an MBA from UConn and a Masters in Public Policy from Harvard. He was running against a quack diet doctor who's not even from PA. He has an illness which he'll rehab from.

Yep sounds just as qualified as Walker. Definitely a fair comparison you're making.

 

[pgg]

Fetterman.

You must not have heard of him. Actually got elected w/o runoff. He supported abortion and hasn’t even had any.

It's hilarious that in a thread titled "lessons learned" that your takeaway from Fetterman's win has nothing to do with the fact that the Republicans put up a Trumpcult-endorsed reality TV Oprah prodigy charlatan who couldn't even get endorsed by Oprah.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Nice "but but but what about this guy?" response. Much easier than actually defending Walker.

But sure, let's both sides it. Fetterman was already Lieutenant Governor of the state. He has an MBA from UConn and a Masters in Public Policy from Harvard. He was running against a quack diet doctor who's not even from PA. He has an illness which he'll rehab from.

Yep sounds just as qualified as Walker. Definitely a fair comparison you're making.

Wrong. Someone said Walker was bad and I agreed (that is not a whatabout response, it is a piling on politicians response). I also took a crack at Fetterman and didn't realize you would protect him like your firstborn. You seem very biased and like a gatekeeper of who we can criticize. Are you incapable of criticizing both sides?

And are you guaranteeing that he will recover fully?

It's hilarious that in a thread titled "lessons learned" that your takeaway from Fetterman's win has nothing to do with the fact that the Republicans put up a Trumpcult-endorsed reality TV Oprah prodigy charlatan who couldn't even get endorsed by Oprah.

I have been a big dissenter of Dr Oz during his show and during his campaign. He is a joke. Never have liked the guy nor how he represents our profession. So I will make fun of Oz all day with you. And I can poke fun at Herschel as well. Am I not allowed to make fun of Fetterman? I assume the left is just as displeased with Fetterman as I would be....

You guys seems very sensitive and thin-skinned. I kinda thought the whole thing including the abortion crack was pretty funny...

 

[pgg]

I offer no defense of Fetterman. He was a poor candidate, and faith that his CVA doesn't affect either cognition or his ability to serve seems to be a lot of reflexive hope. Even if it's merely some expressive aphasia I'd still call that disqualifying for a person seeking a job that revolves around debate, argument, negotiation, and compromise. Broadly speaking we shouldn't be electing anyone with serious chronic health problems that will obviously impact their ability to serve effectively. But maybe the only ability that matters nowadays is the ability to cast a party line vote.

Anyway, the lesson that a large swath of the GOP can't seem to learn is that Trump is a loser and so is anything and everyone connected to him. There doesn't need to be a deep search or any kind of perplexed contemplation when it comes to figuring out why Walker and Oz lost. "But look at the clowns the Democrats are running" isn't the sort of introspection the conservative party (what's left of it, anyway) needs.

 

[vector2]

Wrong. Someone said Walker was bad and I agreed (that is not a whatabout response, it is a piling on politicians response). I also took a crack at Fetterman and didn't realize you would protect him like your firstborn. You seem very biased and like a gatekeeper of who we can criticize. Are you incapable of criticizing both sides?

And are you guaranteeing that he will recover fully?



I have been a big dissenter of Dr Oz during his show and during his campaign. He is a joke. Never have liked the guy nor how he represents our profession. So I will make fun of Oz all day with you. And I can poke fun at Herschel as well. Am I not allowed to make fun of Fetterman? I assume the left is just as displeased with Fetterman as I would be....

You guys seems very sensitive and thin-skinned. I kinda thought the whole thing including the abortion crack was pretty funny...

Yeah, except notably your very first response was something like "Fetterman, have you heard of him???".... which to reasonable people capable of reading sounds a whole lot like "But what about Fetterman?"

You can criticize whomever you want (and sure, Fettermam has got a bunch of his own problems) but don't pretend that you quoted my post about Walker without full intention of making false equivalencies about bad candidates not named Walker.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Yeah, except notably your very first response was something like "Fetterman, have you heard of him???".... which to reasonable people capable of reading sounds a whole lot like "But what about Fetterman?"

You can criticize whomever you want (and sure, Fettermam has got a bunch of his own problems) but don't pretend that you quoted my post about Walker without full intention of making false equivalencies about bad candidates not named Walker.

Wrong. I didn't have intentions about false equivalencies. It was a collegial and jovial quip to get a laugh and maybe a return repartee. I get it is the internets and difficult to get tone. It helps me to read everything in a more playful tone....worst case scenario I interpret a couple of comments as jokes that were truly meant to be insults.

I think it would be fun to list politicians from each party that you think are terrible. Mine would Marjorie sumthin Taylor and AOC (It seems I have a problem with 3 name ppl)

 

[Twiggidy]

Would I be wrong if I said the Democratic Party in swing states tend to run more moderate candidates than the Republican party? I think that’s the GOP biggest issue. Currently who could seriously by definition be a moderate Republican?

Note: I realized currently we’re so tribalized it doesn’t matter how moderate a candidate is but it seems Democrat candidates have to prove themselves more moderate than Republican candidates.

That’s just my 2c on the political climate

 

[tombreaz]

Would I be wrong if I said the Democratic Party in swing states tend to run more moderate candidates than the Republican party? I think that’s the GOP biggest issue. Currently who could seriously by definition be a moderate Republican?

Note: I realized currently we’re so tribalized it doesn’t matter how moderate a candidate is but it seems Democrat candidates have to prove themselves more moderate than Republican candidates.

That’s just my 2c on the political climate

Almost everything has moved left. You just had 12 R's join the D's in that new marriage thing.

People like Bill Maher are yearning for true liberals again. Elon's past voting history and recent comments on this are appropriate as well.

 

[chessknt]

Almost everything has moved left. You just had 12 R's join the D's in that new marriage thing.

People like Bill Maher are yearning for true liberals again. Elon's past voting history and recent comments on this are appropriate as well.

The SCOTUS sure didn't move left. What exactly has moved left again that has impacted our country?

 

[Twiggidy]

Almost everything has moved left. You just had 12 R's join the D's in that new marriage thing.

People like Bill Maher are yearning for true liberals again. Elon's past voting history and recent comments on this are appropriate as well.

A moderate Republican probably should support same sex marriage since something like 70% of the country is ok with it

Maybe those 12 R are the true Rockefeller Republicans the GOP needs

 

[tombreaz]

The SCOTUS sure didn't move left. What exactly has moved left again that has impacted our country?

As a majority the SCOTUS has not moved left, true. But the newest addition is so steeped in leftism that she couldn't answer what a woman was, while being one. And this is after the left says that men can't have an opinion on abortion because they aren't women. Then when asked what a woman is one of the most highly trained women in the world can't give a forthright answer. She instead had to bow to the party whims. Great humor for most of us.

I gave one example of things moving left; marriage-which has been a big deal for virtually all of human history. Many people have also moved let on weed.

See Bill Maher. He's a time tested liberal who you'd probably like hearing things from instead of a dinosaur R like me (and Elon's comments-are you not familiar with them? In a nutshell, he's voted left his entire life but he's voiced that the left has gone too far in too many areas and almost forced him to side R on many things).

 

[tombreaz]

A moderate Republican probably should support same sex marriage since something like 70% of the country is ok with it

Maybe those 12 R are the true Rockefeller Republicans the GOP needs

Fallacy of the majority. Nonetheless, you're proving my point. You're wanting and acknowledging that key things are moving left.

 

[chessknt]

As a majority the SCOTUS has not moved left, true. But the newest addition is so steeped in leftism that she couldn't answer what a woman was, while being one. And this is after the left says that men can't have an opinion on abortion because they aren't women. Then when asked what a woman is one of the most highly trained women in the world can't give a forthright answer. She instead had to bow to the party whims. Great humor for most of us.

I gave one example of things moving left; marriage-which has been a big deal for virtually all of human history. Many people have also moved let on weed.

See Bill Maher. He's a time tested liberal who you'd probably like hearing things from instead of a dinosaur R like me (and Elon's comments-are you not familiar with them? In a nutshell, he's voted left his entire life but he's voiced that the left has gone too far in too many areas and almost forced him to side R on many things).

Elon musk is a neo libertarian, he was voting for Democrats because he wasnt paying attention, nobody in their right mind ascribing to half the **** he believes in would ever vote for a Democrat. That wasn't the left moving left, that was him just cementing his belief system that aligns more closely with Christian nationalism.

Barrett literally belonged to a Catholic cult that believes speaking in tongues is real, do you really want to compare which justices are the furthest along the political spectrum of insane and think the left is going to look bad?

Discrimination in marriage is a right concept that has moved left? You said almost everything--didnour taxation policies move left? How about environmental policies? Our abortion policies? Our stance on free trade/tariffs? Voting rights? Bueller?

 

[BobLoblaw78]

It has stuck with me that Trump was a democrat forever, but then became republican. And, then everyone said Trump's policies were too conservative but many of the same policies were held by Obama. I don't follow politics closely enough to have a firm grasp on historical positions, but it does seem to have shifted left majorly.

 

[tombreaz]

Elon musk is a neo libertarian, he was voting for Democrats because he wasnt paying attention, nobody in their right mind ascribing to half the **** he believes in would ever vote for a Democrat. That wasn't the left moving left, that was him just cementing his belief system that aligns more closely with Christian nationalism.

Barrett literally belonged to a Catholic cult that believes speaking in tongues is real, do you really want to compare which justices are the furthest along the political spectrum of insane and think the left is going to look bad?

Discrimination in marriage is a right concept that has moved left? You said almost everything--didnour taxation policies move left? How about environmental policies? Our abortion policies? Our stance on free trade/tariffs? Voting rights? Bueller?

Speaking in tongues (though I disagree and don't adhere to the practice) has existed and been practiced for thousands of years. It's a religious practice. Not being able to define a woman when you are one and a highly educated person (apparently not?) happened a few months ago. They aren't the same. But you knew that-and this illustrates that your other points are really worth correcting bc you probably know the answers there as well.

You're flippant language about a Billionaire not paying attention is also pretty hilarious. Don't take him at his word that policies have changed and forced him elsewhere. Make something up so that it could never be that.

 

[tombreaz]

It has stuck with me that Trump was a democrat forever, but then became republican. And, then everyone said Trump's policies were too conservative but many of the same policies were held by Obama. I don't follow politics closely enough to have a firm grasp on historical positions, but it does seem to have shifted left majorly.

Key and interesting insight. It's also wild to look up old obama and biden videos where they said they wouldn't never change the definition of marriage. @chessknt

 

[chessknt]

Speaking in tongues (though I disagree and don't adhere to the practice) has existed and been practiced for thousands of years. It's a religious practice. Not being able to define a woman when you are one and a highly educated person (apparently not?) happened a few months ago. They aren't the same. But you knew that-and this illustrates that your other points are really worth correcting bc you probably know the answers there as well.

You're flippant language about a Billionaire not paying attention is also pretty hilarious. Don't take him at his word that policies have changed and forced him elsewhere. Make something up so that it could never be that.

Elon musk is a gaslighting troll who made a lot of money. Being rich does not make you an expert in anything and definitely not in politics. People make uninformed decisions and opinions all the time, look at half the **** he tweets from submarines in caves to ventilators to fake news stories about Pelosi's husband being attacked. He is not some infallible being because he is wealthy. But you knew that right? He just so happens to be right in this case because it supports your views eh?

I know your news sources really want to drill down on that particular exchange about defining a woman. Have you ever read the transcript? It was political bull**** over transgender sports being pushed by a senator and she refused to get in the mud with him. It wasn't some super woke progressive nonsense it was literally the same thing ACB did when she refused to answer questions during her hearing.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

It has stuck with me that Trump was a democrat forever, but then became republican. And, then everyone said Trump's policies were too conservative but many of the same policies were held by Obama. I don't follow politics closely enough to have a firm grasp on historical positions, but it does seem to have shifted left majorly.

trump wanted desperately to run with the "elites" in NYC but they wanted nothing to do with him because they recognized what a boorish clown he was. Then Obama made fun of him and he just couldn't take it anymore. He has no political allegiance. He is only in it for himself.

 

[deleted875186]

Elon musk is a gaslighting troll who made a lot of money. Being rich does not make you an expert in anything and definitely not in politics. People make uninformed decisions and opinions all the time, look at half the **** he tweets from submarines in caves to ventilators to fake news stories about Pelosi's husband being attacked. He is not some infallible being because he is wealthy. But you knew that right? He just so happens to be right in this case because it supports your views eh?

I know your news sources really want to drill down on that particular exchange about defining a woman. Have you ever read the transcript? It was political bull**** over transgender sports being pushed by a senator and she refused to get in the mud with him. It wasn't some super woke progressive nonsense it was literally the same thing ACB did when she refused to answer questions during her hearing.

The fascination with transgender issues by republicans is insane

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Elon musk is a neo libertarian, he was voting for Democrats because he wasnt paying attention, nobody in their right mind ascribing to half the **** he believes in would ever vote for a Democrat. That wasn't the left moving left, that was him just cementing his belief system that aligns more closely with Christian nationalism.

So Elon doesn't know what he is, but you do? I don't think he is as stupid as you say he is. It isn't that he couldn't be mistaken, I just think you are wrong. And you are trying to make the facts fit your narrative with this convoluted rationalization bc he doesn't currently align w/ you.

Barrett literally belonged to a Catholic cult that believes speaking in tongues is real, do you really want to compare which justices are the furthest along the political spectrum of insane and think the left is going to look bad?

So is every religious person insane? And are they unable to make good decisions bc they are insane?

No one said anyone is insane that I saw (except you). They said the Justice couldn't give a straight answer even when she knew the answer. You shut down all reasonable discussion and are calling people crazy, cultists, insane. You don't sound very tolerant at all.

Discrimination in marriage is a right concept that has moved left? You said almost everything--didnour taxation policies move left? How about environmental policies? Our abortion policies? Our stance on free trade/tariffs? Voting rights? Bueller?

I can't really understand what point you are making here (bc it seems contradictory)

 

[BobLoblaw78]

I know your news sources really want to drill down on that particular exchange about defining a woman. Have you ever read the transcript? It was political bull**** over transgender sports being pushed by a senator and she refused to get in the mud with him. It wasn't some super woke progressive nonsense it was literally the same thing ACB did when she refused to answer questions during her hearing.

I want to believe you about defining a woman, but it happens repeatedly with the majority on the left. Talk to college kids that are on the left. I can live with a question dodge, but if the left truly can't say a woman is what it was 10 years ago then there are some serious issues.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Tactic number 1 is to discredit the person who has views that don't align with yours and then to further discredit others who may have those views by accusing them of aligning with a clearly insane or idiotic person.
I would venture that there is no one posting on this forum that is smarter than Elon Musk, based mostly upon his ability to create new companies that have been wildly successful. Yet, to listen to people on here, you would think that Elon Musk is some kind of intellectually challenged person who can't have a logical thought. I suspect that he is hated because he is exposing the hypocrisy that most others have seen for years but did not have the voice or platform to get the message out. I find it hilarious that he is trolling the far left "thinkers" by introducing common sense, which resonates with most but infuriates the far left idealists.

 

[Southpaw]

Just curious - why do we care about the definition of a man or a woman? How does that affect you? Why is it a political issue, outside of one party constantly sticking its nose in our homes/bedrooms?

If a Democrat says a woman is both someone with a uterus but also someone with a penis who transitions and declares themself a woman, why does anyone care?

 

[Arch Guillotti]

why does anyone care?

Because that’s what good “christians” do!

 

[LaryngoSpazz]

Just curious - why do we care about the definition of a man or a woman? How does that affect you? Why is it a political issue, outside of one party constantly sticking its nose in our homes/bedrooms?

If a Democrat says a woman is both someone with a uterus but also someone with a penis who transitions and declares themself a woman, why does anyone care?

Science

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Just curious - why do we care about the definition of a man or a woman? How does that affect you? Why is it a political issue, outside of one party constantly sticking its nose in our homes/bedrooms?

If a Democrat says a woman is both someone with a uterus but also someone with a penis who transitions and declares themself a woman, why does anyone care?

Trans HS Volleyball Player That Injured Opponent Posts Play As 'Highlight'

A North Carolina trans high school volleyball player seriously injured an opponent with a spike and the play was posted as a 'highlight.'

www.outkick.com

When transgender fighter Fallon Fox broke her opponent's skull in MMA fight

Fallon Fox, the first MMA fighter to come out as transgender, once fractured the skull of her opponent in an MMA fight in 2014.

www.sportskeeda.com

Transgender weightlifter Hubbard makes history at Olympics

Transgender weightlifter Laurel Hubbard finally got to compete at the Tokyo Olympics. It didn’t last long but it was significant.

apnews.com

Bc it leads to this insanity. And the definition was not broke and didn't need fixing. Why is it okay to "fix" the definition for 1% bc it doesn't hurt anyone.... But it's not okay to "leave it" as it is for 99% bc it doesn't hurt anyone? And this goes way beyond "sticking its nose in homes/bedrooms." No one cared until it came outside people's homes/bedrooms. It is weird to pretend that the left doesn't care about it...but they are the ones changing it.

To earnestly try to answer your question: It feels like gaslighting the rest of the world that disagrees. It feels like a sociology experiment that is trying to see how much crazy stuff people will accept and regurgitate even though they know it isn't true.

 

[tombreaz]

Elon musk is a gaslighting troll who made a lot of money. Being rich does not make you an expert in anything and definitely not in politics. People make uninformed decisions and opinions all the time, look at half the **** he tweets from submarines in caves to ventilators to fake news stories about Pelosi's husband being attacked. He is not some infallible being because he is wealthy. But you knew that right? He just so happens to be right in this case because it supports your views eh?

I know your news sources really want to drill down on that particular exchange about defining a woman. Have you ever read the transcript? It was political bull**** over transgender sports being pushed by a senator and she refused to get in the mud with him. It wasn't some super woke progressive nonsense it was literally the same thing ACB did when she refused to answer questions during her hearing.

I honestly don't mean this as ad hominem but am shock at how you speak, being a physician. I specifically brought up Elon because he has been left wing his whole life until the past year maybe. I never said he was infallible. I think you should raise the expectations you have of yourself-especially in how you talk with and about people.

I watched the infamous woman event, no transcript needed. What type of physician are you? I'd think that anyone who has studied the anatomy of the sexes in such great detail could easily define and defend such time tested topics. Call a spade a spade.

**edit. And the fact that others "like" your posts in concerning. We will certainly have differences of thought and opinion but should be able to discuss respectfully. That shouldn't be just another one of our disagreements....

 

[LaryngoSpazz]

Nice "but but but what about this guy?" response. Much easier than actually defending Walker.

But sure, let's both sides it. Fetterman was already Lieutenant Governor of the state. He has an MBA from UConn and a Masters in Public Policy from Harvard. He was running against a quack diet doctor who's not even from PA. He has an illness which he'll rehab from.

Yep sounds just as qualified as Walker. Definitely a fair comparison you're making.

No really looking to defend Oz and he may have become a quack diet doctor but he had a pretty impressive career as a cardiac surgeon