Is 2022 Elections going to be a Red Tidal Wave?

[jamil]

You write this post as if there was one breach of the credit agencies. I used to have an article from, maybe Forbes or Fortune, about five years ago that detailed fourteen major breaches of the credit agencies at that time.

I guarantee you that this election software is not world class security. We saw dozens of examples reported of how insecure it really is.

I agree that it's probably not as secure as it needs to be, but we don't know because the source is private. I'd like to see electronic machines with open source code, and open hardware. Off the shelf components. No custom chips. Let experts on either side inspect the machines before they're sent out. Verify all the code in all the systems against checksums. Verify hardware against schematics. Make sure there's a chain of custody when machines are shipped to poling locations. Have representatives from the participating political parties witness the receipt of machines. And so on.

Some states do better than other states with how they conduct elections.

 

[jamil]

The red wave IMHO was a misread of what was happening on the ground by all sides. They were seeing the red wave in Florida and Texas and extrapolating it accords the country. My two cents…

I think the misread was how many zoomers and blue haired single with no kids feminists would vote.

 

[jamil]

No, any frustration I have is guys like you that are so smart, (I mean that sincerely) but they set standards of evidence way beyond what we should be done in this situation.

Organized crime figured out how to conduct their criminal enterprises without anyone important getting caught up in the raids. The people knew but were helpless to stop them with normal laws and penalties. The RICO statutes were created to deal with organized crime that previously was untouchable.

That there is vote fraud in Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philidelphia, have been the mainstay of jokes all of my life. The people know but our current laws are impotent against such organization. We must clean this crap up. The problem is that there were few of the people at large on the mobs side, so it was an easy sell to use the RICO statutes to go after organized crime, not so easy to clean up when half the country is gaining on the other half from that organized activity…

I understand voter fraud happens. I agree that we need to clean it up. I don't think what Trump did, with some of the wild ass claims he and is people made was productive. None of that was provable. Saying it made it too easy to label "MAGA" as trying to steal the election, literally. That **** with Mike Pence was over the top. Stick with what you can sell to independents. No way they're buying the Kraken nonsense.

It's not that I have overly high standards of evidence. It's that I have standards of evidence. You see somethign from GWP or whatever source, and they report something that tickles your ears, and you just believe it. I don't want to just believe. Give me a good reason to believe it. And if it's a wild ass claim, you better give me a ***damn good reason to believe it.

It's not that the evidence has to be perfect. That doesn't exist. And there's no way I can verify everything. But it has to be enough to make me confident that it's not just ********.

 

[printcraft]

I think the misread was how many zoomers and blue haired single with no kids feminists would vote.

They **** the bed with the abortion mess. I can’t decide if the republicans did that intentionally or not at this point.

 

[Ingomike]

I understand voter fraud happens. I agree that we need to clean it up. I don't think what Trump did, with some of the wild ass claims he and is people made was productive. None of that was provable. Saying it made it too easy to label "MAGA" as trying to steal the election, literally. That **** with Mike Pence was over the top. Stick with what you can sell to independents. No way they're buying the Kraken nonsense.

It's not that I have overly high standards of evidence. It's that I have standards of evidence. You see somethign from GWP or whatever source, and they report something that tickles your ears, and you just believe it. I don't want to just believe. Give me a good reason to believe it. And if it's a wild ass claim, you better give me a ***damn good reason to believe it.

It's not that the evidence has to be perfect. That doesn't exist. And there's no way I can verify everything. But it has to be enough to make me confident that it's not just ********.

Do you believe Jovan Pulitzer’s analysis of the votes and the likely fraud he found?

 

[jamil]

You are forgetting that both of you are STEM, remove them and the numbers get worse. Even business and law have moved to the democrats…

No. That's part of the point. All the factions add up to the whole, and gun owning people in STEM is definitely a faction, albeit small.

And you're right about businesses. It's like the party priorities have flipped. America-first Republicans have kinda stopped a lot of the, I guess I'd call it blind support for big business. Democrats in some respects now act a lot like CoC Republicans. But the way that business has embraced woke **** is the worst part. There looks to be opposition to ESG but I've not seen much widespread progress being made there.

 

[Ingomike]

No. That's part of the point. All the factions add up to the whole, and gun owning people in STEM is definitely a faction, albeit small.

And you're right about businesses. It's like the party priorities have flipped. America-first Republicans have kinda stopped a lot of the, I guess I'd call it blind support for big business. Democrats in some respects now act a lot like CoC Republicans. But the way that business has embraced woke **** is the worst part. There looks to be opposition to ESG but I've not seen much widespread progress being made there.

Business breaks in a couple different ways. Global business to dems, US business and small business to repubs. Part of the craziness is that this shift has occurred in no more than the last ten years while the most influential congress critters have been in power far longer than that as the house averages 9 years and the senate averages 11 years. The shift has not caught up to the elected yet.

That actually explains the disconnect between republicans and their constituents, though dems face the same issue as they move to big businesses and union members move republican.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So, even though the law defines the election periods, Dems went to court to start early voting in the Georgia run-off. Got a judge to rule the law doesn't apply to run-offs.

Denied appeal by Republicans.

Republicans ask Georgia high court to halt Saturday voting in US Senate runoff | CNN Politics

Three Republican party committees on Tuesday asked the Georgia Supreme Court to halt Saturday early voting in the US Senate runoff.

www.cnn.com

 

[BugI02]

It's not that I have overly high standards of evidence

 

[BugI02]

Got a judge to rule the law doesn't apply to run-offs.

And the law that judge ruled on SPECIFICALLY mentions runoff several times

They reject reality and substitute their own and then dare anyone to object

 

[jamil]

Okay, having ANY standard is too high. Apparently.

 

[BugI02]

How does that go?

'It's not binary, standards of evidence are a continuum ...'

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[jamil]

How does that go?

'It's not binary, standards of evidence are a continuum ...'

Guess I missed this. And I guess I have to ingo'splain it. Which you probably won't read anyway, but whatever.

Some things fit binary conclusions quite well and don't have that psychological "splitting" going on. Like deciding to follow your princples. There's some equivocating that can happen when your principles go against what your heart want to do. But really, that is pretty binary, but it is NOT binary thinking. You either follow your principles or you don't regardless of where you end up on the cognitive dissonance cascade.

Binary thinking is unconsciously framing thoughts into binary terms. All good, or no good, for example. Anyone who watch Tim Pool's show saw a very good example of this with Kenye West. Ye, was associating all his problems being the fault of Jews, all Jews are bad. It may be the case that some Jews were working against him. It's not evident that their Jewness is a primary cause, but his all-or-nothing thinking makes him believe it.

Some ardent Trumpers around here look to have this going on. You idealize Trump as being all positive, so anything critical is all negative, so you can't accept anything negative as being true. Trump good. Everything else, bad. You view reality in binary terms like that which sets up interpretation of everything into a sort of favorable/unfavorable binary, rather than what is true and what is false about the thing.

I can say that Trump's choices of endorsees did not work out well. In your binary world, the only possible outcome is that they must have cheated. It can't be that people chose to reject Trump's candidates. If we're looking for all the things that are true about it, that has to be considered at least a little. And it's also the case that some cheating did happen. It's all the things, not just either this or that and nothing in between. The world cannot be modeled like that.

 

[BugI02]

Mathematically, the world CAN'T be modeled at all if every variable is on a slider and no definite values are assumed. That isn't math, it is kind of like climate 'modeling'

Some degree of abstraction will always be necessary. You know that, you just don't like the the choices I make. That's perfectly alright as long as you can at least be honest with yourself

 

[tmcindy]

LMAO!

 

[jamil]

Bug. Do you think binary thinking is superior? I think it's a defense mechanism, so it's a feature. But it's a feature that's employed in reaction to something. It's something that when you recognize it, you should override. But you defend it.

So what do you think about this? I don't believe you're a binary thinker on all topics. We can have a discussion that's not at all idealized. We just can't have THIS discussion. Like Trump. I think you have a blind spot there. You're eager to accept positive information about him. You readily believe it. You're extremely reluctant to accept any bad information about him. I'm not sure it's possible for you to believe it. And I think you think of as being instinctive. You've said as much before. And that your instincts are correct. What's the odds of that? That an idealized instinct always happens to be correct.

Mathematically, the world CAN'T be modeled at all if every variable is on a slider and no definite values are assumed. That isn't math, it is kind of like climate 'modeling'

Okay. Let's talk about modeling.I'm assuming you're talking about a "slider" as a control, maybe an analog volume control or whatever. Of course that can be modeled. Hint: It's not on/off. The resolution determines how accurately you can model the thing. If you're modeling on your laptop, that resolution can be pretty damn high.

The climate can be modeled. The question is can it be modeled accurately enough to be useful in predicting outcomes based on inputs? Some. Should it be used to predict that we have to implement Marxism right now or the world will cease to exist in 12 years? Nah.

Some degree of abstraction will always be necessary. You know that, you just don't like the the choices I make. That's perfectly alright as long as you can at least be honest with yourself

If by abstraction you mean assumptions, yes. The parts we don't know we have to guess at based on assumptions. Need determines what is close enough. If yes or no is all you really need, an idiot light on the dash can model engine temperature. It's really easy to decide that you don't need a higher resolution understanding of the world if you're protecting a certain view of the world. The more strongly you feel about something the less you think having a high res view of reality is important. They burnt my pancakes. String 'em up.

Binary thinking reduces complex topics into oversimplified dichotomies, and that serves to protect the things you idealize. Take the statement, "Capitalism is good." Now if I've idealized Marxism, I won't think I need a whole lot of resolution on that. The stronger you feel about that statement pro or con, the lower the resolution with which you'll think about it. Even reducing it to an unreasonable binary.

Is it objectively true that capitalism is good? The real answer to that is complicated because it has it's pros and cons. Now, I'm a free market guy. but what I think about capitalism isn't that it can be reduced to either good or bad. It's that it's the only economic system that scales at society level without requiring tyranny to keep it running. The alternatives don't scale well without tyranny. It's not an easy good/bad dichotomy. If there's a reasonable dichotomy of good/bad it requires strict criteria to define under which conditions it's good, and which conditions it's bad.

Obviously I don't care for your choices. I mean isn't that what preference is? But that has nothing to do with binary thinking or why I brought it up. I think you've idealized Trump and you find it very difficult to accept criticism of him, even legitimate criticism. And you seem to get very defensive about it.

 

[BugI02]

The climate can be modeled. The question is can it be modeled accurately enough to be useful in predicting outcomes based on inputs?

This is the kind of thing that seems unsane. Why on earth would incorrect modeling be seriously discussed? Sure, it's possible to do bad modeling at any made up resolution you wish. I just think the concept of modeling embodies within it the idea that any abstraction will be used to better (and more correctly) grasp a complex system in order to facilitate a quicker but still accurate decision about it

Think situational awareness, not some beard pulling philosophical argument. In SA you are abstracting an environment with a lot of available input to extract only those feeds useful in determining threat level, and all those selected inputs are assigned a yes/no binary value

Edit: And don't you have any idea what an abstraction is? For example in fluid dynamics, say, postulating an idealized frictionless, incompressible fluid in order to simplify writing equations which will allow you to generally analyze many different problems is an abstraction from reality. It isn't an assumption, because we already know that it isn't the case but we can decide to use it because we determine that the deviation from perfect modeling will not result in so much error as to make the results not useful

 

[BugI02]

Obviously I don't care for your choices. I mean isn't that what preference is? But that has nothing to do with binary thinking or why I brought it up. I think you've idealized Trump and you find it very difficult to accept criticism of him, even legitimate criticism. And you seem to get very defensive about it.

You know, I had a friend in college who was a psychiatry major and she just could not resist trying to pop psychoanalyze everyone about everything and couldn't see that she had to have an unrealistically high opinion of herself to always believe she was qualified to do that

I hated it then, I still hate it when you do it. I'm just not a buyer at any price

 

[indyblue]

Yeah, their models are based on small scale experiments using what amounts to a large terrarium and adding CO2. It can't possibly even begin to simulate earths atmosphere. The earths rotation, Brownian motion, changing distance/angles from the sun, solar activity, UV and other radiation and complex dynamics cannot be reproduced at that small scale with any accuracy.

Just like we can create micro black holes in accelarators, they do not much resemble actual black holes power.