2024 Election Thread

I am in a group chat where screenshots of these reports are regularly dropped. It is astounding the amount of clearly non-white people that are reported as white.

The fact that two different things are combined on reporting IS the problem and why the reports are misleading

What are you talking about? None of my viewpoints come from a place of fear. Maybe, in a broad sense, the leftward descent of this country is scary but I'm mostly coming from a place of finding strength instead of embracing weakness and "someone's gotta whip this country back into shape even if everyone hates them for it". In any issue I brought up, jump to the worst case scenario (mass migrant rapes in America, total gun ban, etc.), my message would be, bring me the worst because there's a good chance my guns can solve the problem if it escalates to that point. It's faith that I can handle the worst, not fear of the worst. There's no hiding in the face of adversity. I'm not a coward, and I'm not contending that anyone on here is a coward. "Fearmongering" is, at minimum, a mischaracterization.

 

This is not true, not sure what else to say. It's 2am and I'm sitting in a hotel parking lot.

Or those whom wish to manipulate it with an ulterior motive, such as misrepresenting criminal demographics to make them, er, less disproportionate(?)

I sorta did yes there's a connection but my main point was to be skeptical of crime statistics because they often are misleading.

I don't really care what the legal or technical reason is, Mr. Aldazabal is not white and, at best, the optics behind reporting or claiming he is are poor
--- Post merged ---

And if I were making this point (I am) I'm making it from an awareness angle more than a "ooohhhh so scary you should be fearful" angle.

Like "they're lying to you bro" more than "you should be scared of them bro"
--- Post merged ---
History of government gaslighting, propaganda, straight up lies is an area I've studied as it relates to my line of work. Manipulating official statistics for political gain is something governments have been doing since they started keeping official statistics.

To expand on this is part of the Biden-Harris Admin platform is a friendly refugee policy. It absolutely would not surprise me if it turned out the feds were fudging crime statistics to help increase favorability for migrants. I'm not definitively saying this is happening. I'm saying there is historical precedent for this to happen and it shouldn't be shocking that an admin that gaslights and covers up the truth as much as it does may employ such a strategy.

--- Post merged ---
My auto response to any sort of official statistic is that it's probably bullshit unless proven otherwise by 2-3 investigative journalists that I trust/receive info from.

Amplify the bullshit effect if a politician is sharing any official statistic for a reason
--- Post merged ---

No I'm not going to name them because they are either professional connections AND/OR I'm personally not convinced this forum is ready to seriously consider the value right wing journalists bring to the table and understand some of the biggest stories broken in the last few years were done first by journalists considered alt or far right, idek anymore lost track of the "right wing bad" labels.
--- Post merged ---

Case in point: corporate media, and I'm sure some of my detractors on this thread, would've called reports of Biden's ailing health "misinformation" as recently as a month ago.

After his disastrous debate performance, corporate media only started highlighting Biden's deficiencies because they knew he needed to be replaced. But everyone who reported on his health as far back as 2020 were accused of peddling misinformation. So who's the judge on what's true and what's misinformation?

(Quick side bar, right wing media figures predicted before primary season that the DNC "defenders of democracy " would circumvent the primary vote and replace Biden with a more viable nominee. I first remember hearing this reported in SEPTEMBER 2023 after the convention was scheduled for much later than usual in the election cycle (August vs July), and all that was considered misinformation by the mainstream)

All that to say, and understanding my example deviated from crime statistics a little bit, it's more than reasonable to first assume that official statistics and really anything published by the government is partly or entirely false
--- Post merged ---

You really can't trust academia either. Academia today is one of the most toxic echo chambers in America. That's what happens when a profession such as education is predominantly represented by one ideology. And before "well maybe academia is one ideology because academics know everything so that ideology must be correct". Since 2020, I would guess with absolutely no evidence to back it up (who has that kind of time?) that these "peer reviewed studies" my friends on the left like to cite are, at best, politically motivated to arrive at a certain conclusion or, at worst, intentionally manipulated to do so. And if the "peers" do anything less than validate the study, then they get blackballed. Academia functions like a cartel, it's unfortunate we as a society collectively think we need them on the scale that they exist.

Some of the biggest frauds I've ever met in my life work in academia (mostly because their careers flamed out and had no choice but to teach, wonder why?).
I don't trust their credentials or topical authority any more than I trust the government. Not to mention most universities receive government funding thus creating an incentive to publish research consistent with government narratives.
--- Post merged ---
I haven't really looked into this to know for sure, but I feel like I read awhile back that a university (Columbia?) with a loud pro-palestine stance had federal funds deducted from a department or the whole university. If someone who knows better would like to chime in, please
--- Post merged ---
I knew this thread would devolve into a debate less about policies and more about what pieces of information are real or not.

You can blame your media, academics, and politicians for this. Citizens did not cause this problem.
--- Post merged ---

I'm not opposed to this but I want absolutely no NGO or foreign involvement. None. No help from the UN or Mexican government on navigating to the border. None. People can be free to move here without their help lol

Strip? As in to take away? These people voluntarily arrive here with nothing. I'm not saying they were coming from humane living conditions, in fact it's likely they are seeking better living conditions in a superior country, but we are not taking or stripping anything from them. The current policy is actually the complete opposite. We are providing for them. To "strip" them of these accommodations would just leave them in the default state in which they arrived

I know, we got some lazy unmotivated mfs up in here with a book of excuses not to work. I would appreciate more concentrated efforts on putting citizens to work than just replacing them

If I didn't say this already, I definitely implied it. Either way I agree with this statement

While I believe you're making arguments and sharing literature in good faith I have questions about the credentials of the people who produced this information outlined in a reply to ezz

The UN is sponsoring NGOs that help people navigate South America thru Mexico to the border. That's like one example I can think of off the top of my head

 

Yikes man. If you decide to completely disregard all scientific literature produced in the US, then there's not really much discussion to be had with you. These people spend their whole lives conducting research with the goal of disproving one another. They're seeking truth, not narrative. If you have a problem with any of the scientific literature posted in this thread, I invite you to tell me what the problem is with the methods or the data in the papers. It literally says it all right there precisely how they did it with tons of evidence. Or find me contradicting research. Otherwise, you're far gone man.

 

I didn't say this outright. It's conditional:

This is naive. Maybe how it works in Canada but definitely not in America. Everything is about narrative and conformity to the mainstream here. Every level of society. Everything. Departmental fundings are determined by ESG scores which are heavily virtuous narrative-driven, just to share one example

I normally don't have the time cross check everything but I still reserve a right to skepticism. That's why those 2-3 trusted analytic voices are significant influences on my trust in mainstream (academia, media, etc.) materials. If I read every piece of literature and data about topics I discuss (leisurely, btw), then doublecrosschecked to verify it's legitimacy, I would never get anything done that's of practical importance in my life and it would consume my being. There is so much information available for consumption that the human brain physically cannot process and retain it all. We simply have not evolved at the same rate that information increased in volume and accessibility. The risk I run for consuming wrong information is first consulting human primary sources, and second trusted colleagues within degrees of separation. I like my odds there. Why read a corporate media report of an event when you have access to someone who was there? Or a relative, colleague, or confidant? Why read a study about the effects of, say, Agent Orange, when I can call 4-5 victims I personally know and have a discussion? Why must my worldview be formed by people who sit in a studio, behind a computer, or in an office? The human element of sharing information is lost in studies and mass media. Academics and media people pretend to be unbiased. It's their job, requiring some effort to maintain that appearance. But bias is human nature and personally, I hate it when I can smell a bullshitter from a mile away. It makes everyone look like an ass. Human primary sources are usually honest about any bias that may exist or it's extremely obvious if they're biased.

Maybe I'm living in a bubble, but I usually work 10-12hrs a day and don't have time to consume any topical news media. But I get around so often, around so many different people of various backgrounds, that I frankly reach with my ideas much more effectively IRL than with walls of text online, so I sincerely doubt I'm living in any kind of bubble or experiencing any sort of detachment from reality (which I believe is what you're implying when you say I'm too gone). Come hang out with me at work for a few days and I think you'll find I'm more grounded than the average american you know

 

It is your opinion, that in these example situations I've provided, that I am receiving incorrect information?

--- Post merged ---

and i did not say this. it's not some sort of "group think" situation. the people i consult are in my circle, yes, but maybe like half of them know each other. thats not a group think situation
--- Post merged ---

all sources (incl my own) deserve a degree of skepticism and i reserve the right not take "facts" at face value until i have independently verified they are actual facts. i also reserve the right to do this on a leisurely basis since i gain virtually nothing by doing so if it isnt part of my job

--- Post merged ---

exactly
--- Post merged ---

views on this vary. i think it would be for the best but i also know we are so entrenched in global affairs that stopping cold turkey now atp would probably pose a net negative in the short term but better results long term

 

this is going to be my first time voting for a women president

it's also my first time voting for a president

 

@Ezzerland day 3 of this offer existing, still publicly unanswered by anyone. 0.

considering new information is a two way street bro
--- Post merged ---

surely youre not voting for her just because shes a woman?
--- Post merged ---

This is a frame from the video where Obama calls to endorse her. They're staging phone calls. Everything about this admin is theater. I hate it

 

Fair

 

Military not trade

 

no

 

those are my choices? i'm going third party - dominos

 

me to but pizza hut