|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Nov 10, 2024 10:17:00 GMT
Excellent news this morning. Trump says that neither Haley or Pompeo will get posts in his administration.
|
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by cathyc on Nov 10, 2024 10:20:35 GMT
Oh come on people. Brexit supporters who refuse to talk to Remainers. It's the same thing. Right wing conservatives are the most intolerant of the lot, calling the rest of us "woke" and using that as a thick concrete wall of silence. There's actually some evidence to suggest that "progressives" are more readily intolerant of conservatives' views than vice versa. The much-maligned former academic Noah Carl (who has experience of this at first hand) summarises some of that data here: noahcarl.medium.com/who-doesnt-want-to-hear-the-other-side-s-view-9a7cdf3ad702Note that Carl cites a YouGov poll which found that Leave voters were much more likely to say they wouldn’t mind if a relative married someone who supported Remain than the other way round. Yet here you are again, attacking the "other side" for behaving in a reprehensible way and yet never ever admitting that your own might also be guilty. And then you have the cheek to whine about "intolerance". Carl's work has been totally discredited as "ethically suspect", "methodologically flawed", racist pseudoscience", "poor scholarship which violated standards of academic integrity" and that in compiling his work he had collaborated with extremists. Since then he has further descended into wild rantings about white supremacy and eugenics. Of course, he tries to excuse this by the age-old trick of making it about his own free speech. That's why he is "much-maligned" and deservedly so. I assume you knew this anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2024 10:21:28 GMT
In the vox pops I have seen, there are any number of reasons why Trump won - I suspect, as the exit poll numbers suggested, the two top liners were the economy and immigration. The new wholly GOP majority Executive and Legislature has to "deal with" those two issues and everything else is peripheral. On both issues, the Republican response is protectionist and insular - keep out "the foreign" - whether it's Chinese phones or Bangladesh-made shirts or illegal immigrants (however defined). How the American public perceives the performance of the new Republican administration on those two issues is probably the key factor in future elections (and it's perceptions which can be influenced by media as well as personal experience as much as actual statistics). The US economy is in good shape, and the belief that it's not is largely a result of successful rightwing media messaging. So all Trump has to do really is *not* break the economy, and get the Fox media message to change. The former may be more difficult for him then the latter, given his protectionist plans. On immigration all he has to do is secure the southern border, and now he has the Triecta he can fund The Wall and put machine-guns on it. I expect the flow of migrants to drop dramatically when they realise they may literally get shot at now. Given both these, I think Trump will likely be able to claim success on both key goals. Given the lunatic Woke zealots will not let go of the Democrats willingly, I would say there's a good chance of a GOP advance in the mid-terms. "If Democrats also try to copy the Republicans and Trump, it's pointless" There is no point if Republicans and Trump are successful. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by cathyc on Nov 10, 2024 10:26:47 GMT
Excellent news this morning. Trump says that neither Haley or Pompeo will get posts in his administration. The weird thing is that he has Tweeted that he won't be appointing them. I can't recall any incoming leader making announcements about who they won't be appointing. Maybe he should have rung the Kremlin directly to say that he'd got the messages. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 10, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
There's actually some evidence to suggest that "progressives" are more readily intolerant of conservatives' views than vice versa. The much-maligned former academic Noah Carl (who has experience of this at first hand) summarises some of that data here: noahcarl.medium.com/who-doesnt-want-to-hear-the-other-side-s-view-9a7cdf3ad702Note that Carl cites a YouGov poll which found that Leave voters were much more likely to say they wouldn’t mind if a relative married someone who supported Remain than the other way round. Yet here you are again, attacking the "other side" for behaving in a reprehensible way and yet never ever admitting that your own might also be guilty. And then you have the cheek to whine about "intolerance". Carl's work has been totally discredited as "ethically suspect", "methodologically flawed", racist pseudoscience", "poor scholarship which violated standards of academic integrity" and that in compiling his work he had collaborated with extremists. Since then he has further descended into wild rantings about white supremacy and eugenics. Of course, he tries to excuse this by the age-old trick of making it about his own free speech. That's why he is "much-maligned" and deservedly so. I assume you knew this anyway. Typical of you 'Woke types'! You find a well reasoned proposition you don't like and instead of attempting a refutation, you reach for your instant 'Smear Gun' and generate a crescendo of damn fool nonsense about him being 'suspect', 'flawed', and 'violating academic integrity'. Since when has there been any woke 'academic integrity'? You lot are known for believing 1000 impossible things before breakfast. You are just a very devious crank troll spreading quite obvious total packs of lies. Daft that anyone pays you attention. I shall try to stay on my gold standard of ignoring you completely but that post by you was just too bloody outrageous. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Nov 10, 2024 10:37:08 GMT
The conclusion reached is clearly true regardless of who said it. A significant amount of remainers absolutely lost the plot. Most in politics.
|
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by cathyc on Nov 10, 2024 10:38:54 GMT
Carl's work has been totally discredited as "ethically suspect", "methodologically flawed", racist pseudoscience", "poor scholarship which violated standards of academic integrity" and that in compiling his work he had collaborated with extremists. Since then he has further descended into wild rantings about white supremacy and eugenics. Of course, he tries to excuse this by the age-old trick of making it about his own free speech. That's why he is "much-maligned" and deservedly so. I assume you knew this anyway. Typical of you 'Woke types'! You find a well reasoned proposition you don't like and instead of attempting a refutation, you reach for your instant 'Smear Gun' and generate a crescendo of damn fool nonsense about him being 'suspect', 'flawed', and 'violating academic integrity'. Since when has there been any woke 'academic integrity'? You lot are known for believing 1000 impossible things before breakfast. You are just a very devious crank troll spreading quite obvious total packs of lies. Daft that anyone pays you attention. I shall try to stay on my gold standard of ignoring you completely but that post by you was just too bloody outrageous. Those are direct quotes taken from an investigation of his work that was conducted by his own employers. So please withdraw any allegation that I was spreading obvious lies. Not that you will. |
|
|
|
Post by thinwhiteduke on Nov 10, 2024 10:46:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Nov 10, 2024 10:49:37 GMT
Quoted to like even more! I’d add that understanding opposing positions and their appeal is critical to defeating them (if that’s your purpose - sometimes of course one simply learns). Complete disengagement is the route to a more fractured and angry society. But don't you think there is a problem if it is only the Left who are doing the "understanding and listening" bit, but the Right aren't? As I’ve said I don’t think there’s a down side to listening to someone else - you can learn something, you can understand better the strengths and weaknesses of an opponent and you just may open a dialogue that leads to them changing their mind. If it’s only something done by the left (broadly speaking) that’s to the right’s disadvantage. Sadly doing it at all is rarer than it was. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,401 
|
Post by iain on Nov 10, 2024 11:05:21 GMT
In the vox pops I have seen, there are any number of reasons why Trump won - I suspect, as the exit poll numbers suggested, the two top liners were the economy and immigration. The new wholly GOP majority Executive and Legislature has to "deal with" those two issues and everything else is peripheral. On both issues, the Republican response is protectionist and insular - keep out "the foreign" - whether it's Chinese phones or Bangladesh-made shirts or illegal immigrants (however defined). How the American public perceives the performance of the new Republican administration on those two issues is probably the key factor in future elections (and it's perceptions which can be influenced by media as well as personal experience as much as actual statistics). The US economy is in good shape, and the belief that it's not is largely a result of successful rightwing media messaging. So all Trump has to do really is *not* break the economy, and get the Fox media message to change. The former may be more difficult for him then the latter, given his protectionist plans. On immigration all he has to do is secure the southern border, and now he has the Triecta he can fund The Wall and put machine-guns on it. I expect the flow of migrants to drop dramatically when they realise they may literally get shot at now. Given both these, I think Trump will likely be able to claim success on both key goals. Given the lunatic Woke zealots will not let go of the Democrats willingly, I would say there's a good chance of a GOP advance in the mid-terms. The economic policy Trump seems by far the most keen on is across-the-board tariffs, which he can implement without congressional approval and would almost certainly be an economic disaster (possibly worldwide, not just in the US). If he can persuaded away from this then, as you say, he should be able to do fairly well with the good economy he has inherited. I don’t really see any reason to believe that he won’t go for widespread tariffs though, despite the (IMO rather naïve, but I hope I’m wrong) expectations of many of the right-wingers on here. On the ‘woke zealots’ point, an awful lot of this stuff has been more or less repudiated by most mainstream Democrats (including Kamala Harris who ran a largely economic / democracy focused campaign - the damning statements of hers were from back in the 2020 primary). The academic nonsense will of course continue, and these people will continue to be Democrats, but in terms of the actual congressional caucus it is largely absent outside of a fringe. The Dems are haunted by their recent history here, but there isn’t a great deal they can do about that unless they invent time travel. Obviously it’s far too early to prognosticate on 2026, but our starting assumption has to be a decent level of Democratic gains during a mid-term (even if they don’t go on to gain the Presidency 2 years later). After all, a large number of mainstream Republican policy positions (not just the mad ones like taking away people’s healthcare coverage, but sensible ideas like raising the retirement age) are very unpopular - to say nothing of the carnage that could ensue if Trump goes for his mad tariff ideas - and mid-terms tend to be a referendum on the administration. Plus Democrats now have a much stronger coalition in low-turnout elections. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Nov 10, 2024 11:12:29 GMT
Tariffs are definitely economically damaging. The question is whether what they replace is equally damaging.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2024 11:16:24 GMT
There's actually some evidence to suggest that "progressives" are more readily intolerant of conservatives' views than vice versa. The much-maligned former academic Noah Carl (who has experience of this at first hand) summarises some of that data here: noahcarl.medium.com/who-doesnt-want-to-hear-the-other-side-s-view-9a7cdf3ad702Note that Carl cites a YouGov poll which found that Leave voters were much more likely to say they wouldn’t mind if a relative married someone who supported Remain than the other way round. Yet here you are again, attacking the "other side" for behaving in a reprehensible way and yet never ever admitting that your own might also be guilty. And then you have the cheek to whine about "intolerance". Carl's work has been totally discredited as "ethically suspect", "methodologically flawed", racist pseudoscience", "poor scholarship which violated standards of academic integrity" and that in compiling his work he had collaborated with extremists. Since then he has further descended into wild rantings about white supremacy and eugenics. Of course, he tries to excuse this by the age-old trick of making it about his own free speech. That's why he is "much-maligned" and deservedly so. I assume you knew this anyway. Unherd, Quillette, The Critic, etc - they are all the same. Very right-wing. And of course, they use the same 'freeze peach" nonsense while they agree about white supremacy, eugenics, trans people, social justice and the usual. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,579
|
Post by mboy on Nov 10, 2024 11:48:48 GMT
There's actually some evidence to suggest that "progressives" are more readily intolerant of conservatives' views than vice versa. The much-maligned former academic Noah Carl (who has experience of this at first hand) summarises some of that data here: noahcarl.medium.com/who-doesnt-want-to-hear-the-other-side-s-view-9a7cdf3ad702Note that Carl cites a YouGov poll which found that Leave voters were much more likely to say they wouldn’t mind if a relative married someone who supported Remain than the other way round. Yet here you are again, attacking the "other side" for behaving in a reprehensible way and yet never ever admitting that your own might also be guilty. And then you have the cheek to whine about "intolerance". Carl's work has been totally discredited as "ethically suspect", "methodologically flawed", racist pseudoscience", "poor scholarship which violated standards of academic integrity" and that in compiling his work he had collaborated with extremists. Since then he has further descended into wild rantings about white supremacy and eugenics. Of course, he tries to excuse this by the age-old trick of making it about his own free speech. That's why he is "much-maligned" and deservedly so. I assume you knew this anyway. First, that result by Carl is also replicated by quite a few other researchers, e.g: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672231198001tu-dresden.de/tu-dresden/newsportal/news/migration-polarisiert-rechte-klimawandel-linke-midem-studie-zeichnet-bild-der-konfliktlinien-europas?set_language=enSecond, your resort to quoting what was widely acknowledged at the time to be a hysterical stitch-up and hit-piece by unhinged Social Justice zealots trying (successfully) to whip-up a mob to force Carl out of Cambridge University...is exactly the kind of knee-jerk woke tripe we've come to know and expect from you. Have you ever tried thinking for yourself? |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Nov 10, 2024 11:54:29 GMT
Excellent news this morning. Trump says that neither Haley or Pompeo will get posts in his administration. The weird thing is that he has Tweeted that he won't be appointing them. I can't recall any incoming leader making announcements about who they won't be appointing. Maybe he should have rung the Kremlin directly to say that he'd got the messages. It is quite obviously in response to rumours that Pompeo was being considered as Secretary of Defense and to reassure his supporters that he will not be stuffing his cabinet with establishment figures. This isn't like the UK where a newly elected PM takes office within hours of winning a general election and appoints cabinet members in a day. In the US there is a two month plus transition where all sorts of rumours get floated. In reality he will probably still pick a fairly establishment friendly cabinet. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2024 11:56:35 GMT
.....is exactly the kind of knee-jerk woke tripe we've come to know and expect from you. Have you ever tried thinking for yourself? You do not think for yourself. You believe what you think. For me, you are largely wrong. But you agree with about 'woke tripe'. And? I don't agree.... |
|
|
|
Post by London Lad on Nov 10, 2024 11:57:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by agedlikewine on Nov 10, 2024 12:02:05 GMT
The people who did this sort of thing are likely part of the demographic that stayed home. As are the people who *only* care about these protestors (who are just as weird and misguided). The reality is the Democratic establishment tried to keep them at arms length. |
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,904
|
Post by spqr on Nov 10, 2024 12:16:57 GMT
There's actually some evidence to suggest that "progressives" are more readily intolerant of conservatives' views than vice versa. The much-maligned former academic Noah Carl (who has experience of this at first hand) summarises some of that data here: noahcarl.medium.com/who-doesnt-want-to-hear-the-other-side-s-view-9a7cdf3ad702Note that Carl cites a YouGov poll which found that Leave voters were much more likely to say they wouldn’t mind if a relative married someone who supported Remain than the other way round. Yet here you are again, attacking the "other side" for behaving in a reprehensible way and yet never ever admitting that your own might also be guilty. And then you have the cheek to whine about "intolerance". Carl's work has been totally discredited as "ethically suspect", "methodologically flawed", racist pseudoscience", "poor scholarship which violated standards of academic integrity" and that in compiling his work he had collaborated with extremists. Since then he has further descended into wild rantings about white supremacy and eugenics. Of course, he tries to excuse this by the age-old trick of making it about his own free speech. That's why he is "much-maligned" and deservedly so. I assume you knew this anyway. Yes, I'm aware of much of the criticism levelled at him. But in this instance, I'm not especially bothered. It was the links to the data Carl produced in his post that I wanted to highlight, not his analysis (which I'm uninterested in, and which you'll note is minimal in the article anyway). Had a sainted figure like, say, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown gathered such evidence, then I would have happily cited her blog instead - but it was Carl who came up with the goods here. And it is objective evidence, with seemingly little to rebut it. At the very least, it means that flibbertigibbets like doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ should at least try to be a little more balanced when "calling out" others for deficiencies that clearly lie closer to home. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,714
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 10, 2024 12:39:54 GMT
Carl's work has been totally discredited as "ethically suspect", "methodologically flawed", racist pseudoscience", "poor scholarship which violated standards of academic integrity" and that in compiling his work he had collaborated with extremists. Since then he has further descended into wild rantings about white supremacy and eugenics. Of course, he tries to excuse this by the age-old trick of making it about his own free speech. That's why he is "much-maligned" and deservedly so. I assume you knew this anyway. Typical of you 'Woke types'! You find a well reasoned proposition you don't like and instead of attempting a refutation, you reach for your instant 'Smear Gun' and generate a crescendo of damn fool nonsense about him being 'suspect', 'flawed', and 'violating academic integrity'. Since when has there been any woke 'academic integrity'? You lot are known for believing 1000 impossible things before breakfast. You are just a very devious crank troll spreading quite obvious total packs of lies. Daft that anyone pays you attention. I shall try to stay on my gold standard of ignoring you completely but that post by you was just too bloody outrageous. Researcher has talked to people-we-don't-like to find out their opinions, we don't like people-we-don't-like, therefore his research is flawed.
|
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by cathyc on Nov 10, 2024 12:40:23 GMT
Carl's work has been totally discredited as "ethically suspect", "methodologically flawed", racist pseudoscience", "poor scholarship which violated standards of academic integrity" and that in compiling his work he had collaborated with extremists. Since then he has further descended into wild rantings about white supremacy and eugenics. Of course, he tries to excuse this by the age-old trick of making it about his own free speech. That's why he is "much-maligned" and deservedly so. I assume you knew this anyway. First, that result by Carl is also replicated by quite a few other researchers, e.g: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672231198001tu-dresden.de/tu-dresden/newsportal/news/migration-polarisiert-rechte-klimawandel-linke-midem-studie-zeichnet-bild-der-konfliktlinien-europas?set_language=enSecond, your resort to quoting what was widely acknowledged at the time to be a hysterical stitch-up and hit-piece by unhinged Social Justice zealots trying (successfully) to whip-up a mob to force Carl out of Cambridge University...is exactly the kind of knee-jerk woke tripe we've come to know and expect from you. Have you ever tried thinking for yourself? "Your resort to quoting". Ha ha ha. I sort of admire that kind of totally non-self aware Pavlovian response. What I quoted was not hysterical or unhinged or a stitch-up (for which you've provided not one shred of evidence) but the findings of a report on his methodology and work practices. I haven't quoted the list of racists, white supremacists and eugenicists that he associated with but do feel free to ask. There may well be other sources that come to the same conclusions as Carl's, yet his was the one cited and the one I commented on. BTW of the two links you've provided, one says that there is polarisation on both sides depending on the issue at hand. Then it say that those on the right are most polarised on the matter of immigration. So do some thinking for yourself. "Those on the political right, however, show more affective polarization on the issue of immigration." The other link says that their conclusions are a snapshot, transitory and makes the excellent point that "we have argued that much of the difference in empathy is because of differences in perceptions of harm caused by the opponent’s political group. The fact that these are unequal perceptions of harm does not mean they are unfounded or without reason." Have you ever thought of reading what you post? |
|
