Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 28,820]

34 minutes ago, Fernando said:

What is interesting about that article is that Biden kept trump tariff. If that one was so bad why didn't Biden took it down? 

But other than that I get the point the article is bringing. Just found that little part interesting. 

Biden kept some narrow, very specific, targeted tarrifs that were left over from Trump. I have no issue with certian targeted, reasonable tariffs.

Trump wants to implement across the board wide-ranging (and very high) ones. That would have a disastrous effect on prices and the economy there (plus impact other friendly nations who import to the US), and likely kick off serious trade wars.

[cosmicway 1,323]

The odds are now Trump = 1.53, Harris = 2.50.
It's hard lines for Harris.
The consensus of opinion is whoever wins Pennsylvania wins, but in Pennsylvania Trump is marginally ahead.
I don't know what she might have done better.
For me taxes. The dems ought to be lowering taxes by as much as they can not putting them up.
Because even the taxes on the rich are eventually hurting the poor people.
The money of the rich do not trickle down by as much as the Reaganomics theory suggests but taxes do trickle down:
Tax goes up by 3% - prices go up by 3% the next day.
It depends of course on what it is they sell and how essential it is but overall it is automatic - the extra cost goes to the consumer, it's a law of commerce.
Even nationalized companies do the same. The government finds it necessary to milk them some more, they raise their prices.
To have the pie and the dog one must fix prices as well - but this is more difficult, maybe unconstitutional as well.

[NikkiCFC 7,952]

3 hours ago, cosmicway said:

The odds are now Trump = 1.53, Harris = 2.50.

Hillary was 1.20 and lost. 

[cosmicway 1,323]

5 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

Hillary was 1.20 and lost. 

1.30 maybe but I not in the last days - in July, August.
In the last days it was something like 1.90 - 2.20 as I recall.
Anyway 1.50 is strong as elections go.

[robsblubot 3,504]

6 hours ago, Vesper said:

Freud was a charlatan, a crank, and a dishonest fraud. Your reply changes nothing about that.

The intent of my reply wasn’t to change anything about how the world sees him today.

Whether Freud was a charlatan, by modern standards, or not is irrelevant. He made people think about a lot of things for the first time—not that many people in history can claim that.

 

[Vesper 28,820]

Nearly 95% of all bets at one site last week picked Trump to win the election

‘It’s been the busiest and most seesaw election we’ve covered,’ betting site spokesperson says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-harris-betting-election-odds-b2636154.html

Ninety-five percent of bets placed with a leading bookmaker during a recent seven-day period were for former President Donald Trump to win the November election.

In the week leading up to Thursday, only 5 percent of those betting on the race for the White House with Star Sports backed Vice President Kamala Harris, according to Newsweek.

The odds on the betting site are 4/6 (60 percent) for Trump to win and 11/8 (42.1 percent) for Harris to become the next commander-in-chief.

Star Sports political betting analyst William Kedjanyi told Newsweek, “It’s been another week of Donald Trump being favored in the market.”

He added: “Although there’s still time for some twists and turns before Election Day, the former president is comfortably in the driving seat, according to the betting at 4/6 to return to the White House on November 5, with Kamala Harris now the 11/8 outsider.”

Asked about the significant interest in betting on the former president, a spokesperson for the betting site told the outlet that they “laid Biden along with other candidates early on, then Harris when she was announced, along with several decent bets on Trump – so we find ourselves in a fairly comfortable position.”

“That enabled us to be top price Trump at a time when we felt he was too short, and while coinciding with polls being in his favor, both factors contributed to the lopsided recent interest in him,” the spokesperson added. “It’s been the busiest and most seesaw election we’ve covered, and we believe more change will come.”

Even as recent polling shows the race as a dead heat, Star Sports has the former president as the favorite to win all seven battleground states – Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada and Arizona.

The betting site has odds of 15/8 (34.8 percent) that Trump wins all seven.

As of Saturday morning, Harris has a 1.4 percent lead in FiveThirtyEight’s average of national polls, but in its simulations of the election, Trump wins 53 out of 100 simulations to Harris’s 47 wins.

During Trump’s appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience on Friday, he said he doesn’t trust the polls, suggesting that there’s “probably a lot of fraud” in the surveys even as he often brings up polls favorable to him.

“You know how polls are done?” Trump asked the podcaster. “Oh, I’m going to get myself in trouble. So I really don’t believe too much in them.”

“I don’t think they interview in many cases,” Trump added, without providing evidence for his claims of fraud.

[Vesper 28,820]

3 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

The intent of my reply wasn’t to change anything about how the world sees him today.

Whether Freud was a charlatan, by modern standards, or not is irrelevant. He made people think about a lot of things for the first time—not that many people in history can claim that.

 

Just because he 'made people think about a lot of things for the first time' does not raise him up.

He injected quackery, dishonesty, and pseudoscience into the debate, put thsos into millions of people's minds.

[Fulham Broadway 16,851]

5 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Just because he 'made people think about a lot of things for the first time' does not raise him up.

He injected quackery, dishonesty, and pseudoscience into the debate, put thsos into millions of people's minds.

100%. Absolute coke head to boot, obsessed with sex. 

We had to cover him at Uni, but all the lecturers were unified in their opinion he was a drug addled fraud.

[robsblubot 3,504]

11 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Just because he 'made people think about a lot of things for the first time' does not raise him up.

He injected quackery, dishonesty, and pseudoscience into the debate, put thsos into millions of people's minds.

I can understand the point of view and don’t dispute the findings about his work. Just think that he did provide new insights into how our mind works at the time. 
Similar discussion here 

 

3 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

100%. Absolute coke head to boot, obsessed with sex. 

We had to cover him at Uni, but all the lecturers were unified in their opinion he was a drug addled fraud.

That’s irrelevant imo.

[Vesper 28,820]

1 minute ago, robsblubot said:

Just think that he did provide new insights into how our mind works at the time

his 'insights' were rubbish

[Vesper 28,820]

4 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

That’s irrelevant imo.

it is not irrelevent

his drug abuse affected his quality of thought, and his sexual obsessions lead him to crackpot theories

[robsblubot 3,504]

16 minutes ago, Vesper said:

his 'insights' were rubbish

His insights into the unconscious made a lot of sense and are still very much relevant.

we now know that our minds are very much an uncontrollable association machine: we cannot stop that process because it’s not under our control (interesting book: “the way we think” prob outdated by now)… it’s very much affected by our memory, which is also not under our control.

I am usually not a fan of applying modern knowledge, standards, and especially sensibilities to different times.

Not long ago most doctors would suggest smoking as cure. Go back a bit over a century and they did not cleanse wounds or wash their hands.

Edited October 27 by robsblubot

[robsblubot 3,504]

9 minutes ago, Vesper said:

it is not irrelevent

his drug abuse affected his quality of thought, and his sexual obsessions lead him to crackpot theories

How do you know? Would he not be a charlatan if “the quality of his thoughts” were not influenced by drugs or the amount of it?

this goes into methodology and even personal, so no, not something I’d consider the most important aspect when discussing his work.

[Vesper 28,820]

10 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

How do you know? Would he not be a charlatan if “the quality of his thoughts” were not influenced by drugs or the amount of it?

this goes into methodology and even personal, so no, not something I’d consider the most important aspect when discussing his work.

His 'science' was shit.

He was shit as a human being.

He was a dishonest fraud who caused massive harm on a global level.

I am gobsmacked you contiune to carry water for the POS.

But you do you.

[Fulham Broadway 16,851]

35 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

That’s irrelevant imo.

The academic profession and Psychologists dont seem to think so.

Off his nut on coke so much he deviated his septum , then took more coke as a 'remedy'. Bloke was a fucking idiot. imo

 

[Vesper 28,820]

20 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

His insights into the unconscious made a lot of sense and are still very much relevant.

They do NOT 'make a lot of sense'.

Many of his positings have been thoroughly shown to be quackery.

They are only 'relevant' in terms of showing the damage a fraud can cause.

[Vesper 28,820]

This Freud thread is an archetypal example of why I fear the advanced world is well down the path to a negative epistemic breakdown (or, if you will, a reversion to the times where objective truth is obliterated and only people's feelings count as the arbiters of what is false orn true).

The age of 'alternative facts' looms larger and larger.

[cosmicway 1,323]

Freudism is good in certain areas.
First the childhood trauma. The patient exhibits a certain strange behaviour because of a childhood trauma. As it was too early in his life he has forgoten about it but the trauma is what has adjusted his behaviour. 
Deep hypnosis makes him remember and then recover.
Then misconceptions. We all have misconceptions. One such might be the Pythagorean theorem. The sum of the squares of the two vertical sides is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. Unlikely that someone gets this wrong but what if he actually did ? What if he believed the sums of the squares of the vertical sides is greater than or equal the square of the hypotenuse ? He would live the life of a madman for sure ! If you think this is childish, the misconception could be about something a little more complicated.
The Freudian tecchnique explains this to the patient and he recovers.
For other things maybe not. Sex mania for example. Maybe Freud cannot cure sex mania,

 

Edited October 27 by cosmicway