To our liberal, progressive friends on here...

[TwinDegrees2]

Does it bother you that Harris was anointed without ever receiving a single vote nor having to run and earn the nomination?

Does it bother you that Walz was anointed as was Harris without having to campaign for the position?

Does it smack of racial/sexual discrimination to you that there are/may be far better democrat candidates that would do a hell of a lot better job than either of the anointed ones?

What happened to a Democrat convention where the candidate has to earn the position, selected by those elected to select the candidate?

Do you consider this a sham anointing, or do you think it's the fairest and most democratic method of selection?

And does it bother you that your party has been taken over by left wing radicals?

 

[JBoiler23]

Does it bother you that Harris was anointed without ever receiving a single vote nor having to run and earn the nomination?

A bit, but I've rarely gotten a choice in the primary in the first place, as it's normally already decided before my state gets to vote. I'm an advocate for a single national primary. So, I don't see it as much different than any other year.

Does it bother you that Walz was anointed as was Harris without having to campaign for the position?

Running mates don't have to campaign for their position. They are always just selected by the presidential candidate, at least in modern elections. So no.

Does it smack of racial/sexual discrimination to you that there are/may be far better democrat candidates that would do a hell of a lot better job than either of the anointed ones?

In every single election, for both parties, there may be other candidates that would do better than the ones who are actually running. So no.

What happened to a Democrat convention where the candidate has to earn the position, selected by those elected to select the candidate?

It's still going to happen.

Do you consider this a sham anointing, or do you think it's the fairest and most democratic method of selection?

I don't consider it democratic, but as I stated above, primaries aren't particularly democratic to begin with. So, while I have a problem with that generally, I don't think this particular nomination constitutes a "sham."

And does it bother you that your party has been taken over by left wing radicals?

This is not a statement of fact that can be demonstrated objectively, but rather an opinion, so I don't think the question is worthy of a response.

I could just as easily as you if it bothers you that your party has been taken over by right-wing radicals, and you could just as easily and justifiably dismiss it.

 

[Indy_Rider]

I've got to agree with JBoiler on a lot of this.

What annoys me is how late the Democrat convention is. With early voting starting soon, they effectively will officially elect their candidate just in time for voting to start. It would seem to me there needs to be a rule that the candidate has to be officially nominated something like 3 months before voting starts so you have time to campaign and debate as an official candidate.

But doing it this late, they can become the candidate and start receiving votes while easily ducking any real questions and very little time for a slip up which seems to be the Harris strategy so far.

 

[JBoiler23]

I've got to agree with JBoiler on a lot of this.

What annoys me is how late the Democrat convention is. With early voting starting soon, they effectively will officially elect their candidate just in time for voting to start. It would seem to me there needs to be a rule that the candidate has to be officially nominated something like 3 months before voting starts so you have time to campaign and debate as an official candidate.

But doing it this late, they can become the candidate and start receiving votes while easily ducking any real questions and very little time for a slip up which seems to be the Harris strategy so far.

Perhaps such a rule is needed, but conventions of both parties have routinely been held in late July, August, and even early September. Hard to justify that it's any sort of strategy, especially since the convention was scheduled when Biden was the presumptive nominee, so it wasn't as if there was any surprise.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

A bit, but I've rarely gotten a choice in the primary in the first place, as it's normally already decided before my state gets to vote. I'm an advocate for a single national primary. So, I don't see it as much different than any other year.

Running mates don't have to campaign for their position. They are always just selected by the presidential candidate, at least in modern elections. So no.

I know that they don't have to campaign though many do for the position. My point is that they're usually introduced at the convention, and with the way the Dem convo is ran, there can't be a surprise.

In every single election, for both parties, there may be other candidates that would do better than the ones who are actually running. So no.

It's still going to happen.

I don't consider it democratic, but as I stated above, primaries aren't particularly democratic to begin with. So, while I have a problem with that generally, I don't think this particular nomination constitutes a "sham."

This is not a statement of fact that can be demonstrated objectively, but rather an opinion, so I don't think the question is worthy of a response.

I could just as easily as you if it bothers you that your party has been taken over by right-wing radicals, and you could just as easily and justifiably dismiss it.

How has my party been taken over by radicals? Trump, in his four-year term proved that he's just the opposite. No wars, low inflation, tiny amount of illegals, and I can go on. Pence in no way is a radical, but because he's a Christian, the left can't stand that and worked very hard to convince all that he and Trump were.

 

[JBoiler23]

I know that they don't have to campaign though many do for the position.

Unless I'm misremembering, I don't recall anyone campaigning publicly to be selected. They make public appearances to raise their profiles and try to make their case to the presidential nominee, and the same thing happened in this case between Walz, Beshear, Shapiro, and Kelly. Maybe Buttigieg, too.

My point is that they're usually introduced at the convention, and with the way the Dem convo is ran, there can't be a surprise.

This doesn't appear to be true. Sometimes at the convention, often not. Both parties.

Days Before or After the First Day of Convention Vice-Presidential Nominees Were Selected | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

How has my party been taken over by radicals? Trump, in his four-year term proved that he's just the opposite. No wars, low inflation, tiny amount of illegals, and I can go on. Pence in no way is a radical, but because he's a Christian, the left can't stand that and worked very hard to convince all that he and Trump were.

My point was not to imply that the Republicans have been taken over by radicals, but to point out that it would be just as ridiculous for me to say that as a matter of fact as it was for you to say the opposite. Hence why I said you'd be perfectly justified to dismiss it as I did. To the extent that either of us thinks that, it's merely an opinion.

 

[Joetboiler]

Unless I'm misremembering, I don't recall anyone campaigning publicly to be selected. They make public appearances to raise their profiles and try to make their case to the presidential nominee, and the same thing happened in this case between Walz, Beshear, Shapiro, and Kelly. Maybe Buttigieg, too.

This doesn't appear to be true. Sometimes at the convention, often not. Both parties.

Days Before or After the First Day of Convention Vice-Presidential Nominees Were Selected | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

My point was not to imply that the Republicans have been taken over by radicals, but to point out that it would be just as ridiculous for me to say that as a matter of fact as it was for you to say the opposite. Hence why I said you'd be perfectly justified to dismiss it as I did. To the extent that either of us thinks that, it's merely an opinion.

Hate to tell you but the D party has been taken over by leftist. And the reason that most Dems don’t see it is the frog in the pot theory. The march left has been so consistent that the electorate has been blinded. Who you think is closer to second term Bill Clinton? Trump or Harris? I mean around 1/2 of the D electorate believe that Israel is a genocide State, think men can get pregnant, see no problem with men punching women in the Olympics, see America is a racist colonialist country, don’t believe in the right to bear arms, are anti-free speech, support minimal basic income, and think the Trump assassination attempt was staged. Which of these things would Obama agreed to in 2008?

In 2000 Bernie Sanders was a crazy dude from Vermont. Now he is a couple fixed primaries from being the nominee.

As for Trump. The only radical positions he has taken is on Trade. Breaking from the free traders of the Republican establishment and the position to avoid foreign entanglements (a former position of the left -Dennis K (OH) - but now they love war).

 

[JBoiler23]

Hate to tell you but the D party has been taken over by leftist. And the reason that most Dems don’t see it is the frog in the pot theory. The march left has been so consistent that the electorate has been blinded. Who you think is closer to second term Bill Clinton? Trump or Harris? I mean around 1/2 of the D electorate believe that Israel is a genocide State, think men can get pregnant, see no problem with men punching women in the Olympics, see America is a racist colonialist country, don’t believe in the right to bear arms, are anti-free speech, support minimal basic income, and think the Trump assassination attempt was staged. Which of these things would Obama agreed to in 2008?

In 2000 Bernie Sanders was a crazy dude from Vermont. Now he is a couple fixed primaries from being the nominee.

As for Trump. The only radical positions he has taken is on Trade. Breaking from the free traders of the Republican establishment and the position to avoid foreign entanglements (a former position of the left -Dennis K (OH) - but now they love war).

The problem with any argument about "radicalism" is that it is subjective what one considers to be radical. So, there are undoubtedly left-wing policy positions that you would consider radical that I wouldn't and vice versa. You can't state as a matter of fact that Trump has only done ONE radical thing, because it's not an issue of fact, it's an issue of opinion. I'm not interested in subjective discussions of what is or is not radical.

 

[tjreese]

The problem with any argument about "radicalism" is that it is subjective what one considers to be radical. So, there are undoubtedly left-wing policy positions that you would consider radical that I wouldn't and vice versa. You can't state as a matter of fact that Trump has only done ONE radical thing, because it's not an issue of fact, it's an issue of opinion. I'm not interested in subjective discussions of what is or is not radical.

relative to a subjective opinion- is what is radical or not. Do you consider some position held that differs from the norm to be radical...and I'm not qualifying radical as good or bad...just the accurate position of that measure. I would submit that radical is some point away from the norm in the very thing considered. Obviously the next question would be what Z score would be considered abnormal or radical? This would quantify the deviation from norm. If a number can't be put on it, then we don't know much about it. What Z score is far enough from norm to be considered abnormal or radical on anything since it is a mathematical comparison not subjected to any particular thing. Thousands of things are quantified and again this has nothing to do with a specific item and all to do with measure relationships. It would be the absolute value not the direction needed.

 

[JBoiler23]

Do you consider some position held that differs from the norm to be radical

It depends. And if you want to go try to quantify it as the rest of your post suggests, we'd also have to agree on what is the "norm," which we may or may not. "The United States does it this way" is not necessarily the norm, so one could adopt a position that is very different from US tradition, but that is globally not unusual, or not unusual among peer nations.

But the problem with trying to quantify how radical something is is that radical is not clearly defined in such a way. And even if we could agree that some policy position IS radical, that doesn't make it necessarily bad, so I don't think it's a useful exercise.

 

[tjreese]

It depends. And if you want to go try to quantify it as the rest of your post suggests, we'd also have to agree on what is the "norm," which we may or may not. "The United States does it this way" is not necessarily the norm, so one could adopt a position that is very different from US tradition, but that is globally not unusual, or not unusual among peer nations.

But the problem with trying to quantify how radical something is is that radical is not clearly defined in such a way. And even if we could agree that some policy position IS radical, that doesn't make it necessarily bad, so I don't think it's a useful exercise.

actually it is very useful to understand the measure. You are correct in that the norm is a function of the data (same goes for modeling outside your data for climate change as an easy example or archaeological find dates). You could say this is the norm in New York City or the norm in Dallas or the whole USA which is where we live. You might compare the norm to China and such, but it is great to understand something and yes, it can be quantified as the topic in hand has a norm. This is why I stated it had nothing to do with good or bad, but a measure from the norm. That norm whether defined accurately or not has been used to distinguish pornography.

Would we expect a norm difference with China on a given topic? That norm difference can be tested as significant or not as well as the difference in the norm on average and the tolerance about that norm difference. By quantifying it with a measure...particularly a measure that is continuous rather than discrete we can learn a lot. This can also tie into the zebra example of trying to get inside the herd by mor accurately understanding the herd. This is not a trick question, I just wondered what z score you would use to determine when it was radical or abnormal with whatever area you were extracting data...again an absolute value...not a direction

 

[JBoiler23]

actually it is very useful to understand the measure. You are correct in that the norm is a function of the data (same goes for modeling outside your data for climate change as an easy example or archaeological find dates). You could say this is the norm in New York City or the norm in Dallas or the whole USA which is where we live. You might compare the norm to China and such, but it is great to understand something and yes, it can be quantified as the topic in hand has a norm. This is why I stated it had nothing to do with good or bad, but a measure from the norm. That norm whether defined accurately or not has been used to distinguish pornography.

Would we expect a norm difference with China on a given topic? That norm difference can be tested as significant or not as well as the difference in the norm on average and the tolerance about that norm difference. By quantifying it with a measure...particularly a measure that is continuous rather than discrete we can learn a lot. This can also tie into the zebra example of trying to get inside the herd by mor accurately understanding the herd. This is not a trick question, I just wondered what z score you would use to determine when it was radical or abnormal with whatever area you were extracting data...again an absolute value...not a direction

I think the best answer I can give is that I wouldn't use a z score, because I don't find it useful to quantify radicalness. A good idea could be 73 radical units and a bad idea could be only 4 radical units. I don't care what ideas are radical, I care what ideas are good. But, regardless, I still maintain that whether or not an idea is considered radical is subjective anyway.

 

[tjreese]

I think the best answer I can give is that I wouldn't use a z score, because I don't find it useful to quantify radicalness. A good idea could be 73 radical units and a bad idea could be only 4 radical units. I don't care what ideas are radical, I care what ideas are good. But, regardless, I still maintain that whether or not an idea is considered radical is subjective anyway.

Not sure I understand the math for 73 or 4, but that is okay. The Z score takes into consideration the variation of the topic in hand answers, and the distance they it lies from the norm...realizing the norm changes on topic and data gathered, but it does get more precise. Maybe what I should have stated is what percent of a population would fall into the radical or abnormal population no matter the topic or place? None of this is of particular relevance other than trying to understand when "different" is radical or abnormal.

FWIW and it is not always used, but a rule of thumb for statistical significance many times is 95% confidence or 95% of the data doesn't agree that the data outside the 95% is normal (with degrees of freedom adjusted if needed), but abnormal. Some might use 90% or 99% and others like multiple regression in forward or backward stepwise might discern at 75%. Again, no right or wrong answer and your opinion of the percent is your opinion. However, when known... then a message is better understood since "subjectiveness variability" has been reduced. A similar approach "attempted" might be an English teacher or a teacher evaluating an essay with a rubric to attempt to reduce variation in grading. Not the cup of tea many have in the background as they read things no matter the subject...and I get that...

 

[JBoiler23]

Not sure I understand the math for 73 or 4, but that is okay. The Z score takes into consideration the variation of the topic in hand answers, and the distance they it lies from the norm...realizing the norm changes on topic and data gathered, but it does get more precise. Maybe what I should have stated is what percent of a population would fall into the radical or abnormal population no matter the topic or place? None of this is of particular relevance other than trying to understand when "different" is radical or abnormal.

FWIW and it is not always used, but a rule of thumb for statistical significance many times is 95% confidence or 95% of the data doesn't agree that the data outside the 95% is normal (with degrees of freedom adjusted if needed), but abnormal. Some might use 90% or 99% and others like multiple regression in forward or backward stepwise might discern at 75%. Again, no right or wrong answer and your opinion of the percent is your opinion. However, when known... then a message is better understood since "subjectiveness variability" has been reduced. A similar approach "attempted" might be an English teacher or a teacher evaluating an essay with a rubric to attempt to reduce variation in grading. Not the cup of tea many have in the background as they read things no matter the subject...and I get that...

It wasn't math, I made up fictional units to make a point. And, again, I don't care if something is "different" or "radical" or "abnormal," but whether it's a good idea or, as a concept, comports with reality.

 

[BoilerJS]

The problem with any argument about "radicalism" is that it is subjective what one considers to be radical. So, there are undoubtedly left-wing policy positions that you would consider radical that I wouldn't and vice versa. You can't state as a matter of fact that Trump has only done ONE radical thing, because it's not an issue of fact, it's an issue of opinion. I'm not interested in subjective discussions of what is or is not radical.

Radical to conservatives is Walz letting riots continue in Minnesota and Kamala Harris supporting a fund me page to post bond for those arrested.
Radical to conservatives is passing a State law requiring tampons dispensers be placed in boys restrooms.
Radical to conservatives is creating a State that suggest sanctuary for children under 18, to have hormone treatment and sex changes.
Radical to conservatives is the ability of the government to take your under 18 child away from you because you don't want them to change their gender.

Radical to liberals is requiring immigrants to enter via the ports of entry and not flow unvented through an open border.
Radical to liberals is only allowing US citizens to vote in the election, thus requiring some form of proof of citizenship.
Radical to liberals is peace through strength.
Radical to liberals are ICE cars, eating meat, paying for your own health care, restrictions on abortion, just to name a few.

 

[JBoiler23]

Radical to conservatives is Walz letting riots continue in Minnesota and Kamala Harris supporting a fund me page to post bond for those arrested.
Radical to conservatives is passing a State law requiring tampons dispensers be placed in boys restrooms.
Radical to conservatives is creating a State that suggest sanctuary for children under 18, to have hormone treatment and sex changes.
Radical to conservatives is the ability of the government to take your under 18 child away from you because you don't want them to change their gender.

Radical to liberals is requiring immigrants to enter via the ports of entry and not flow unvented through an open border.
Radical to liberals is only allowing US citizens to vote in the election, thus requiring some form of proof of citizenship.
Radical to liberals is peace through strength.
Radical to liberals are ICE cars, eating meat, paying for your own health care, restrictions on abortion, just to name a few.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions.

 

[Joetboiler]

The problem with any argument about "radicalism" is that it is subjective what one considers to be radical. So, there are undoubtedly left-wing policy positions that you would consider radical that I wouldn't and vice versa. You can't state as a matter of fact that Trump has only done ONE radical thing, because it's not an issue of fact, it's an issue of opinion. I'm not interested in subjective discussions of what is or is not radical.

I asked you a simple question. Who is closer to second term Bill Clinton. Trump and the current Republican platform? Or Harris and the modern day Democratic Party?

I know we are being forced to unlearn what we have learned to be unburdened but the current D presidential candidate is on record supporting at agreeing with closing all immigration detention centers (I guess this means people illegally crossing the border just get let go?); giving free health care to all illegals; comparing ICE agents to the KKK; limiting American’s meat consumption; wiping away all student debt however illegal it may be; forced gun buyback program; defunding police; ending fossil fuel use by 2030; not having kids because of global warming fear; and a allowing men in a women’s bathroom. I’ll start with these. Which do you think are not radical, and which do you agree with?

Or simpler, what policy positions that Trump has or implemented in his first term are radical? Because I keep hearing about how extreme Rs have become yet their positions (except trade and foreign entanglements) have not changed much since Reagan.

 

[JBoiler23]

I asked you a simple question. Who is closer to second term Bill Clinton. Trump and the current Republican platform? Or Harris and the modern day Democratic Party?

I don't care. I don't pick the person who will get my vote based on who's closest to Bill Clinton, and distance from Bill Clinton is not the standard by which we measure radicalism.

I know we are being forced to unlearn what we have learned to be unburdened but the current D presidential candidate is on record supporting at agreeing with closing all immigration detention centers (I guess this means people illegally crossing the border just get let go?); giving free health care to all illegals; comparing ICE agents to the KKK; limiting American’s meat consumption; wiping away all student debt however illegal it may be; forced gun buyback program; defunding police; ending fossil fuel use by 2030; not having kids because of global warming fear; and a allowing men in a women’s bathroom. I’ll start with these. Which do you think are not radical, and which do you agree with?

My whole point here is that I can say, "I don't think these are radical," and that's the end of the discussion, because that would just be my opinion. You think they ARE radical, and that's, similarly, just your opinion. It's subjective and doesn't matter. You're trying treat radical-ness as if it's some sort of objective measure, and treating radical-ness as if it's inherently negative, when it's simply neither. It's a useless conversation to have. I also don't understand the question "which do you think are not radical, and which do you agree with," because it seems to imply that I couldn't agree with something that I also consider to be radical. An idea being radical does not, in itself, make it bad.

 

[tjreese]

It wasn't math, I made up fictional units to make a point. And, again, I don't care if something is "different" or "radical" or "abnormal," but whether it's a good idea or, as a concept, comports with reality.

I think I see the disconnect. I’m using norm as a math term or average of data and you maybe are using it as a social statement. The questions would deal with social or financial or whatever. There would be a range of 1 to 10 as an example perhaps in a single question inside a few questions dealing with immigration, foreign aid or the topic of choosing. The data might show a variety of scores in various areas. Those scores would allow an average (norm) and deviation from that average or norm. An individual score could be compared to the population or a score could be standardized where say 16% scored below 250 some value that was outside one standard deviation below average.

Generally the average IQ is considered 100 and one std dev is 15. An IQ of 85 is considered mildly retarded.and is roughly 16% a score of 70 or another std dev lower has a bit over 2% of the population. This is the sort of thing I was trying to suggest, it provides a better picture of the outcomes to see how they stand to the average or norm. Fully aware that the average score on various subjects could differ from other demographics. You could compare various areas on various subjects. You could compare data from Indiana to the USA or Mexifornia to the USA. It is just a measure of how far something is from the average. It quantifies differences and at some point someone may say…this far away is abnormal such as IQ or maybe it is reading level or weight per height. Abnormal without a measure can mean anything as you said unless it is qualified not only to the demographics in the data, but the measures inside that data, I hope I didn’t muddy the water, but think the disconnect was due to how “norm” was used in that I was talking statistics and it appears to me you were talking social

 

[JBoiler23]

I think I see the disconnect. I’m using norm as a math term or average of data and you maybe are using it as a social statement. The questions would deal with social or financial or whatever. There would be a range of 1 to 10 as an example perhaps in a single question inside a few questions dealing with immigration, foreign aid or the topic of choosing. The data might show a variety of scores in various areas. Those scores would allow an average (norm) and deviation from that average or norm. An individual score could be compared to the population or a score could be standardized where say 16% scored below 250 some value that was outside one standard deviation below average.

Generally the average IQ is considered 100 and one std dev is 15. An IQ of 85 is considered mildly retarded.and is roughly 16% a score of 70 or another std dev lower has a bit over 2% of the population. This is the sort of thing I was trying to suggest, it provides a better picture of the outcomes to see how they stand to the average or norm. Fully aware that the average score on various subjects could differ from other demographics. You could compare various areas on various subjects. You could compare data from Indiana to the USA or Mexifornia to the USA. It is just a measure of how far something is from the average. It quantifies differences and at some point someone may say…this far away is abnormal such as IQ or maybe it is reading level or weight per height. Abnormal without a measure can mean anything as you said unless it is qualified not only to the demographics in the data, but the measures inside that data, I hope I didn’t muddy the water, but think the disconnect was due to how “norm” was used in that I was talking statistics and it appears to me you were talking social

Thanks for the stats lecture. You're the bestest mansplainer.

 

[boiler_89_]

Does it bother you that Harris was anointed without ever receiving a single vote nor having to run and earn the nomination?

Does it bother you that Walz was anointed as was Harris without having to campaign for the position?

Does it smack of racial/sexual discrimination to you that there are/may be far better democrat candidates that would do a hell of a lot better job than either of the anointed ones?

What happened to a Democrat convention where the candidate has to earn the position, selected by those elected to select the candidate?

Do you consider this a sham anointing, or do you think it's the fairest and most democratic method of selection?

And does it bother you that your party has been taken over by left wing radicals?

What has happened here is exactly what the left argues trump would do. Overthrow the results of an election. Lose their mind about Trump. Completely overlook this. The results of the primary (an election) have been completely ignored. All good, though.

 

[Joetboiler]

I don't care. I don't pick the person who will get my vote based on who's closest to Bill Clinton, and distance from Bill Clinton is not the standard by which we measure radicalism.

My whole point here is that I can say, "I don't think these are radical," and that's the end of the discussion, because that would just be my opinion. You think they ARE radical, and that's, similarly, just your opinion. It's subjective and doesn't matter. You're trying treat radical-ness as if it's some sort of objective measure, and treating radical-ness as if it's inherently negative, when it's simply neither. It's a useless conversation to have. I also don't understand the question "which do you think are not radical, and which do you agree with," because it seems to imply that I couldn't agree with something that I also consider to be radical. An idea being radical does not, in itself, make it bad.

No. I am demonstrating that for several years we have been told about Trump/MAGA extremism. Yet these positions which we are told are extreme/radical are actually not too dissimilar to the second term Clinton platform. It’s the positions of the modern D which are extreme.

What I do find ironic is that those who denigrate those on the right and their positions are very shy about declaring theirs. It’s almost like saying out loud “yes. I support letting in 10 million unvetted people and releasing them into the country - knowing thousands are violent criminals - and make tax payers support them and the cost of Americans quality of life” makes somebody sound crazy.

I think that’s why those on the left love the “hate has no home” and “I believe in” lawn signs. They are just slogans that can’t be argued against. But they are vacuous in meaning and meant to garner one virtue. Look what a great person I am. Rather, instead lets talk about if science that you believe in dictates that a person with XY chromosomes has an athletic advantage over a woman in a boxing ring. Because that would be one heck of a declarative lawn sign.

 

[JBoiler23]

No. I am demonstrating that for several years we have been told about Trump/MAGA extremism. Yet these positions which we are told are extreme/radical are actually not too dissimilar to the second term Clinton platform. It’s the positions of the modern D which are extreme.

Opinions, again. Different ≠ extreme.

What I do find ironic is that those who denigrate those on the right and their positions are very shy about declaring theirs. It’s almost like saying out loud “yes. I support letting in 10 million unvetted people and releasing them into the country - knowing thousands are violent criminals - and make tax payers support them and the cost of Americans quality of life” makes somebody sound crazy.

I am aware of no one who supports this strawman, and your use of it here is why we can't have an honest conversation and why I feel no compulsion to engage with you on policy positions.

I think that’s why those on the left love the “hate has no home” and “I believe in” lawn signs. They are just slogans that can’t be argued against. But they are vacuous in meaning and meant to garner one virtue. Look what a great person I am.

You mean like "Make America Great Again?" I mean, who could be against that, amirite?

Rather, instead lets talk about if science that you believe in dictates that a person with XY chromosomes has an athletic advantage over a woman in a boxing ring. Because that would be one heck of a declarative lawn sign.

Science doesn't determine fairness in athletics. Athletics governing bodies set their rules however they see fit, informed by as much science as they deem necessary to promote fairness. I know of none that simply check chromosomes and then assign divisions accordingly, ignoring other factors.

 

[Joetboiler]

Opinions, again. Different ≠ extreme.

I am aware of no one who supports this strawman, and your use of it here is why we can't have an honest conversation and why I feel no compulsion to engage with you on policy positions.

You mean like "Make America Great Again?" I mean, who could be against that, amirite?

Science doesn't determine fairness in athletics. Athletics governing bodies set their rules however they see fit, informed by as much science as they deem necessary to promote fairness. I know of none that simply check chromosomes and then assign divisions accordingly, ignoring other factors.

Really? You know of no athletic governing board that simply checks chromosomes and then assign divisions accordingly? Huh? You should get out more. I’ll refer you to the IBA’s Rule 4.2 Eligibility on Gender as well as their gender definition. Because they only use a chromosome test to assign divisions.

https://www.iba.sport/news/iba-clar...-ineligible-boxers-was-sent-and-acknowledged/

Compare that to the IOC spokesman who said “here passport said female.”

And you can’t engage me on policy positions because you don’t really know what to support . Are we for open borders? Or not now? Fracking yes? Fracking no? Defund policy? We used to be. But we haven’t said yet….

 

[TheGunner]

Thanks for the stats lecture. You're the bestest mansplainer.

Only to be out done by Kamasplainer on AI.

 

[JBoiler23]

Really? You know of no athletic governing board that simply checks chromosomes and then assign divisions accordingly? Huh? You should get out more. I’ll refer you to the IBA’s Rule 4.2 Eligibility on Gender as well as their gender definition. Because they only use a chromosome test to assign divisions.

https://www.iba.sport/news/iba-clar...-ineligible-boxers-was-sent-and-acknowledged/

It's funny that Rule 4.2 is called "Eligibility on Gender" only in the rules that took effect March 3, 2024, well after the event in question. It wasn't actually in the rules from 2023:

https://www.iba.sport/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/20230209-IBA-Technical-Competition-Rules.pdf

or from 2021:

https://www.iba.sport/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/20240303-IBA-Technical-Competition-Rules-v7-clean.pdf

Which, presumably would've been the rules in place in 2022 when the two boxers were disqualified.

Also funny that IBA has yet to publish any test results. If they could prove their claim about Khelif's chromosomes were true, they'd at least have something. But to the extent that IBA defines man as XY and woman as XX, they're out of step with biologists. Anyone who says biology is "simple" doesn't understand biology.

But IBA is free to do whatever they want to determine eligibility. So is IOC. As long as everyone is aware of the rules and are equally held accountable to them, I'm cool with it.

But cool, you found one. Sorry I don't keep up with international boxing.

Compare that to the IOC spokesman who said “here passport said female.”

But also I'm pretty sure on here I've argued with folks who say "if you have a penis you're a man." So should we determine sports based on genitals or chromosomes? What happens when they don't match as we might expect? Or should it based on testosterone levels?

I'd say, rather than have a blanket policy, let each sport decide what works best for them.

And you can’t engage me on policy positions because you don’t really know what to support . Are we for open borders? Or not now? Fracking yes? Fracking no? Defund policy? We used to be. But we haven’t said yet….

Ah, so now you're aware of what I think. That's quite the claim. In reality, I won't (not can't) engage you on policy positions because you continually make strawmen out of them. It'd be like if I accused you, because you presumably support JD Vance, of thinking that the only thing post-menopausal women are good for is taking care of grandkids. I'm 97% sure you wouldn't support that notion, and it's not clear that Vance does either, but that's a claim one could easily make based on the evidence. So when you say "democrats support open borders," or "democrats want to mutilate children," you're similarly not engaging honestly with what the positions actually are. You have a cartoon villain version of democrats and that's what you argue against.

And at this point, we've come so far afield from the original topic, I'm pretty much done with it. I stand by my position that "radicalness" is subjective and not useful to talk about anyway.

 

[JBoiler23]

Only to be out done by Kamasplainer on AI.

View embedded media

Holy crap, you mean she doesn't have a comprehensive knowledge of machine learning, LLMs, etc.? Damn, whoever can I vote for now, if that's the criterion.

 

[Joetboiler]

It's funny that Rule 4.2 is called "Eligibility on Gender" only in the rules that took effect March 3, 2024, well after the event in question. It wasn't actually in the rules from 2023:

https://www.iba.sport/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/20230209-IBA-Technical-Competition-Rules.pdf

or from 2021:

https://www.iba.sport/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/20240303-IBA-Technical-Competition-Rules-v7-clean.pdf

Which, presumably would've been the rules in place in 2022 when the two boxers were disqualified.

Also funny that IBA has yet to publish any test results. If they could prove their claim about Khelif's chromosomes were true, they'd at least have something. But to the extent that IBA defines man as XY and woman as XX, they're out of step with biologists. Anyone who says biology is "simple" doesn't understand biology.

But IBA is free to do whatever they want to determine eligibility. So is IOC. As long as everyone is aware of the rules and are equally held accountable to them, I'm cool with it.

But cool, you found one. Sorry I don't keep up with international boxing.

But also I'm pretty sure on here I've argued with folks who say "if you have a penis you're a man." So should we determine sports based on genitals or chromosomes? What happens when they don't match as we might expect? Or should it based on testosterone levels?

I'd say, rather than have a blanket policy, let each sport decide what works best for them.

Ah, so now you're aware of what I think. That's quite the claim. In reality, I won't (not can't) engage you on policy positions because you continually make strawmen out of them. It'd be like if I accused you, because you presumably support JD Vance, of thinking that the only thing post-menopausal women are good for is taking care of grandkids. I'm 97% sure you wouldn't support that notion, and it's not clear that Vance does either, but that's a claim one could easily make based on the evidence. So when you say "democrats support open borders," or "democrats want to mutilate children," you're similarly not engaging honestly with what the positions actually are. You have a cartoon villain version of democrats and that's what you argue against.

And at this point, we've come so far afield from the original topic, I'm pretty much done with it. I stand by my position that "radicalness" is subjective and not useful to talk about anyway.

Wrong again on the IBA
https://www.iba.sport/news/statemen...fications-in-world-boxing-championships-2023/

And I don’t find it odd that they didn’t release the results. This would be a privacy violation. To my knowledge MLB and NFL don’t release PED tests. They just say failed to pass. Now I would assume that the athletes have a copy of the result. Do you find it funny that the two boxers didn’t release to the public the test results? Nothing would stop them. And what reason would the IBA have to boot out 2 of their better boxers

And it’s not that you didn’t keep up with international boxing. It’s that your sources on the story did not tell you the most important fact in the situation. The IBA conducted a test and they were found to not meet the female chromosome requirement. I mean, I didn’t pull some random sports organization. I referenced THE organization associated with the controversy. Nothing really to keep up with.

 

[JBoiler23]

Wrong again on the IBA
https://www.iba.sport/news/statemen...fications-in-world-boxing-championships-2023/

Wrong about what, the timing? They were initially tested in 2022, then again in March 2023. The rules referenced in your link went into effect in between. One could argue that they changed the rules specifically to account for these two boxers, because they didn't define men and women according to chromosomes before that point. NOTE: I'm not making that argument, simply pointing it out as a possibility. "Just asking questions," as the conspiracy theorists put it.

And I don’t find it odd that they didn’t release the results. This would be a privacy violation.

Good point.

To my knowledge MLB and NFL don’t release PED tests. They just say failed to pass. Now I would assume that the athletes have a copy of the result. Do you find it funny that the two boxers didn’t release to the public the test results? Nothing would stop them. And what reason would the IBA have to boot out 2 of their better boxers

There's been a fair amount out there about possible corruption in the IBA. Don't know if it's true, but it's a possible reason.

And it’s not that you didn’t keep up with international boxing. It’s that your sources on the story did not tell you the most important fact in the situation. The IBA conducted a test and they were found to not meet the female chromosome requirement. I mean, I didn’t pull some random sports organization. I referenced THE organization associated with the controversy. Nothing really to keep up with.

The only thing important is that IBA and IOC have different standards. They were eligible according to IOC, not according to IBA. And there doesn't appear to be any evidence that they are trans, which is what I suspect you're ACTUALLY worried about. Why are we still arguing about this? I don't understand what it has to do with anything.

I know, let's do away with gendered boxing altogether. Measure everyone's testosterone, bone density, punch strength, height, weight, wingspan, etc. and then divide everyone up that way. That way everyone will only ever fight against someone roughly as strong as them and with very similar body characteristics and then it'll truly be about skill. It's unfair for stronger people to have an advantage over weaker ones in boxing.

What should we tackle next, whether or not the French were mocking Christians during the opening ceremonies? Or do you have something else that's irrelevant to the thread (which I'll remind you was originally about how Harris became the nominee and opinions on it) you'd prefer to discuss?

 

[TheGunner]

Holy crap, you mean she doesn't have a comprehensive knowledge of machine learning, LLMs, etc.? Damn, whoever can I vote for now, if that's the criterion.

Maybe it would have been easier for her to introduce someone who knows something about AI instead of pretending she knows something about AI.

 

[JBoiler23]

Maybe it would have been easier for her to introduce someone who knows something about AI instead of pretending she knows something about AI.

If someone pretending they know about a topic bothers you, wait 'til you find out who the republicans are running...

But also, you've given zero context for this clip. Was such a person available? Who was she talking to? What was the question that was asked? Did she start with "you know, I'm not an expert, but in my understanding..."

 

[TheGunner]

If someone pretending they know about a topic bothers you, wait 'til you find out who the republicans are running...

But also, you've given zero context for this clip. Was such a person available? Who was she talking to? What was the question that was asked? Did she start with "you know, I'm not an expert, but in my understanding..."

Yeah, I am sure no one was available to present to an audience on behalf of the VP.

Maybe they were all “in the cloud above us”



More kamasplain. My 15 yr knows what the cloud is. It’s real tough to use “the google machine” to learn about a topic. But keep defending Kamala, she needs all of the help she can get.

 

[tjreese]

Thanks for the stats lecture. You're the bestest mansplainer.

it really wasn't a stat's lecture. Stats is but a measure, but do appreciate the mansplainer! If you can't put a number on it, you don't know much about it.

 

[JBoiler23]

Yeah, I am sure no one was available to present to an audience on behalf of the VP.

Do you know anything about the circumstances in which she spoke about AI? How do you know someone was there, in the moment, that she could refer to? Do you think the VP has the power to conjure experts at her will?

But like, still. Even if you made a convincing case that Harris doesn't know what she's talking about. Neither does Trump (often on even much simpler topics like how boats float or what it means to be bi-racial or that Hannibal Lecter is a fictional character). So if we have two candidates that don't understand things, clearly, we'll both have to make our decision based on some other factor.

 

[TheGunner]

Do you know anything about the circumstances in which she spoke about AI? How do you know someone was there, in the moment, that she could refer to? Do you think the VP has the power to conjure experts at her will?

But like, still. Even if you made a convincing case that Harris doesn't know what she's talking about. Neither does Trump (often on even much simpler topics like how boats float or what it means to be bi-racial or that Hannibal Lecter is a fictional character). So if we have two candidates that don't understand things, clearly, we'll both have to make our decision based on some other factor.

Background on the meeting when Kamala tried to kamasplain AI

VP Kamala Harris gives painful AI explanation, calling it ‘first off, two letters,’ and ‘kind of a fancy thing’

Vice President Kamala Harris’ attempted to explain artificial intelligence (AI) to a group of labor and civil rights leaders on Wednesday.

nypost.com

The CNBC article below states the mtg with labor union reps and civil rights activists. Oddly, it also states that…

It (meaning the mtg where Kamala kamasplained AI) follows a similar discussion Harris hosted with CEOs of major tech companies working on AI, including Microsoft, Google and OpenAI. AI experts have encouraged the government to listen to a diverse range of voices on the technology so as not to be overly swayed by industry priorities.

🤔Weird how this article states the Harris previously met with CEOs from major tech companies working on AI. That sort of debunks your theory the VP cannot conjure up experts because she obviously did ahead of this meeting (ok, maybe she didnt “conjure” up experts…as that was your word not mine…but she got them to show up to a mtg). Maybe Harris could’ve asked one of those experts to present….nah, she’s got this with …kamasplain.

VP Harris meets with labor and rights groups to discuss threats from A.I.

A meeting at the White House on Wednesday includes groups that advocate on behalf of specific populations or on digital rights issues.

www.cnbc.com

Also, you’d think someone with a staff of about 50-100 people MIGHT be able to find someone knowledgeable about AI if the experts aren’t available, but nah, let’s leave it to kamasplain.

 

[JBoiler23]

Background on the meeting when Kamala tried to kamasplain AI

VP Kamala Harris gives painful AI explanation, calling it ‘first off, two letters,’ and ‘kind of a fancy thing’

Vice President Kamala Harris’ attempted to explain artificial intelligence (AI) to a group of labor and civil rights leaders on Wednesday.

nypost.com

Ok, so she was talking to labor union folks and got a question about AI. She doesn't have a great understanding of it, which I've already acknowledged. Does that disqualify her from the presidency?

The CNBC article below states the mtg with labor union reps and civil rights activists. Oddly, it also states that…

It (meaning the mtg where Kamala kamasplained AI) follows a similar discussion Harris hosted with CEOs of major tech companies working on AI, including Microsoft, Google and OpenAI. AI experts have encouraged the government to listen to a diverse range of voices on the technology so as not to be overly swayed by industry priorities.

🤔Weird how this article states the Harris previously met with CEOs from major tech companies working on AI. That sort of debunks your theory the VP cannot conjure up experts because she obviously did ahead of this meeting (ok, maybe she didnt “conjure” up experts…as that was your word not mine…but she got them to show up to a mtg). Maybe Harris could’ve asked one of those experts to present….nah, she’s got this with …kamasplain.

Yeah, by "conjure" I meant she could, in the moment after receiving the question, make an AI expert appear to answer the question. The fact that she, at some previous time, had met with a different group of people is irrelevant. Or were those tech CEOs like hanging out with her at later appearances just in case?

VP Harris meets with labor and rights groups to discuss threats from A.I.

A meeting at the White House on Wednesday includes groups that advocate on behalf of specific populations or on digital rights issues.

www.cnbc.com

Also, you’d think someone with a staff of about 50-100 people MIGHT be able to find someone knowledgeable about AI if the experts aren’t available, but nah, let’s leave it to kamasplain.

And the second she defers to someone else, you'd be on here with a clip saying she runs away from questions. She was asked a question, she answered it.

And again, given that Trump doesn't understand how electric boats can float and that doesn't bother you, it makes me think you're just painfully unserious about how one's knowledge base relates to their qualifications for office.

 

[TheGunner]

And the second she defers to someone else, you'd be on here with a clip saying she runs away from questions. She was asked a question, she answered it.

And again, given that Trump doesn't understand how electric boats can float and that doesn't bother you, it makes me think you're just painfully unserious about how one's knowledge base relates to their qualifications for office.

I think youre wrong about that. When COVID broke out I was saying Trump should just walk up and introduce Fauci instead of making comments like injecting bleach. If you don’t know something about a topic it’s best to let the experts talk instead of looking like an idiot.

 

[JBoiler23]

I think youre wrong about that. When COVID broke out I was saying Trump should just walk up and introduce Fauci instead of making comments like injecting bleach. If you don’t know something about a topic it’s best to let the experts talk instead of looking like an idiot.

Ok, cool, but Trump thinks he IS the expert on everything:

https://www.axios.com/2019/01/05/everything-trump-says-he-knows-more-about-than-anybody

So, why aren't you on here posting clips of him making these patently ridiculous claims and talking out his ass as if it should be a reason not to vote for him? If YOU think that's a disqualifying issue, then clearly you're a hypocrite because one candidate is far worse than the other, and it's not Harris. If you DON'T think it's a disqualifying issue, then why bring it up?

 

[TheGunner]

Ok, cool, but Trump thinks he IS the expert on everything:

https://www.axios.com/2019/01/05/everything-trump-says-he-knows-more-about-than-anybody

So, why aren't you on here posting clips of him making these patently ridiculous claims and talking out his ass as if it should be a reason not to vote for him? If YOU think that's a disqualifying issue, then clearly you're a hypocrite because one candidate is far worse than the other, and it's not Harris. If you DON'T think it's a disqualifying issue, then why bring it up?

I post stuff here because

1. MSM provides little coverage of the Biden Administration’s missteps. There’s ample coverage of EVERYTHING Trump does wrong (just like the media frames up Trump is a liar and Biden/Harris “misspeak”…explain that difference to me).

2. The economy is a wreck and it’s a wreck because of the free money injected into the economy during COVID and the Biden administration doubled down and added additional money into the economy by the mislabeled (OK reality a flat out LIE) inflation Reduction Act and Biden’s executive orders eliminating college debt even though the USSC has said doing so is illegal.

But I’ll just let Kamala be Kamala from now on…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/15/kamala-harris-price-gouging-groceries/

 

[Purdue95Grad]

I post stuff here because

1. MSM provides little coverage of the Biden Administration’s missteps. There’s ample coverage of EVERYTHING Trump does wrong (just like the media frames up Trump is a liar and Biden/Harris “misspeak”…explain that difference to me).

2. The economy is a wreck and it’s a wreck because of the free money injected into the economy during COVID and the Biden administration doubled down and added additional money into the economy by the mislabeled (OK reality a flat out LIE) inflation Reduction Act and Biden’s executive orders eliminating college debt even though the USSC has said doing so is illegal.

But I’ll just let Kamala be Kamala from now on…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/15/kamala-harris-price-gouging-groceries/

1. The MSM was across the board apoplectic after the debate. The MSM has actually hammered Biden pretty hard overall but yet when Trump goes on his boats and shark tangents, it slips right on by. The problem is he says that kind of stuff so much it’s been normalized. Your claim here is a stretch (by normal standards, not yours)
2. By what metrics are the economy a mess? Because I can goddamn guarantee that if Trump was in office you would be touting this exact same economy. And so would he.