Also the five eyes is genius honestly. A lot of nations have strong laws preventing spying on their own citizens… Except it’s not illegal to spy on another country, especially with a tacit agreement that they can spy on your own citizens and you just trade information later.

Soon I can algorithmically identify friend or foe by comparing their multidimensional political beliefs to my own (17, 89, 7, 32, 90, 72, 11, 3, 55, 23, 68, 99)

deleted by creator

WHAT!?

Yeah this is a well known tactic in the US government. Backdoor dealings outline how to make a split vote and pick a fall guy to protect the party’s image.

I.e. the Democrats failing to stop Trump’s war in Iran a few weeks ago where some random nobody was the fall guy that time. It looks like Democrats tried but failed and they can blame it on some inconsequential Rando who isn’t up for reelection

The military industrial complex owns everything. The machine exists for their benefit.

I edited my original comment to append info to clarify. Deleting it would remove an important part of this whole conversation I think.

If you read my sources (and my previous comments, “as per my last email”) a lot of these biases and headwinds disappear with education. As stupid as it sounds, just running an ad going “a black female candidate can garner just as much political support as a white male candidate” can have a strong effect in her campaign.

The core disagreement I think we’re having is whether or not this should even be identified as an issue. I believe it should be as per my previous comments.

as far as I can tell, you don’t think it’s an issue and shouldn’t be contented in an election

Yeah you’re right it’s not an issue that needs to be identified and educated to the general population. We’ll just run a candidate again and act surprised when she loses despite the polling we’re getting saying she’s going to win…

If you won’t accept Standford as a source tell me in advance what sources you accept and I bet I can find studies from that institution as well supporting my argument…

Edit:

This feels like:

“Here are sources proving people don’t change their mind when presented with sources to foundationally back up a claim they don’t agree with”

“I don’t believe that”

They are a big issue. It’s one of the biggest influences on a political campaign for president by a black woman candidate. I’m going to copy paste from my other comment below

Here’s an article on what I’m talking about

When voters are presented with evidence showing that women political candidates garner just as much support as men in U.S. general elections, voters’ intentions to support women presidential candidates increased by about 3 percentage points, the researchers’ data showed

If they aren’t shown and it’s normalized that a candidate can garner just as much political support then it’s a headwind…

There’s also the belief I’m talking about where people say a woman can’t win, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It also comes down to advertising and education (which are hamstrung by mudslinging during elections)

There are a lot of studies like this. I could go on for quite a while.

There’s also a double bind racial bias where black female candidates are viewed as highly competent but unsuitable for a general election.

We theorize that one driving force is a paradox among Democratic primary voters: namely, that Black women are seen both as more liberal and less electable. Using two different survey experiments, we show that, while most Democratic primary candidates benefit from perceptions of being more liberal, this cannot be said for Black women due to beliefs that they are less likely to win in the general election.

These issues need to be:

A) recognized as real.

B) dealt with through education and normalization.

Ironically your style of comment is undermining A and B by saying none of this is real, and shutting down any conversation about potentially fixing it…

Edit: grammar

Here’s an article on what I’m talking about

When voters are presented with evidence showing that women political candidates garner just as much support as men in U.S. general elections, voters’ intentions to support women presidential candidates increased by about 3 percentage points, the researchers’ data showed

If they aren’t shown and it’s normalized that a candidate can garner just as much political support then it’s a headwind…

There’s also the belief I’m talking about where people say a woman can’t win, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It also comes down to advertising and education (which are hamstrung by mudslinging during elections)

There are a lot of studies like this. I could go on for quite a while.

There’s also a double bind racial bias where black female candidates are viewed as highly competent but unsuitable for a general election.

We theorize that one driving force is a paradox among Democratic primary voters: namely, that Black women are seen both as more liberal and less electable. Using two different survey experiments, we show that, while most Democratic primary candidates benefit from perceptions of being more liberal, this cannot be said for Black women due to beliefs that they are less likely to win in the general election.

These issues need to be:

A) recognized as real.

B) dealt with through education and normalization.

Ironically your style of comment is undermining A and B by saying none of this is real, and shutting down any conversation about potentially fixing it…

I don’t believe this either. Her polling was dead wrong up until the last minute, same with trump but the warning signs were there early. I don’t think it was reflecting reality so it’s a bad measuring stick for the situation. Also, don’t shoot the messenger here I’m not supporting this but it’s an important aspect of why she lost even if you disagree with me…

Edit: I’m going to copy one of my other comments with sources below to support my argument, and why this should be brought up and identified.

Here’s an article on what I’m talking about

When voters are presented with evidence showing that women political candidates garner just as much support as men in U.S. general elections, voters’ intentions to support women presidential candidates increased by about 3 percentage points, the researchers’ data showed

If they aren’t shown and it’s normalized that a candidate can garner just as much political support then it’s a headwind…

There’s also the belief I’m talking about where people say a woman can’t win, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It also comes down to advertising and education (which are hamstrung by mudslinging during elections)

There are a lot of studies like this. I could go on for quite a while.

There’s also a double bind racial bias where black female candidates are viewed as highly competent but unsuitable for a general election.

We theorize that one driving force is a paradox among Democratic primary voters: namely, that Black women are seen both as more liberal and less electable. Using two different survey experiments, we show that, while most Democratic primary candidates benefit from perceptions of being more liberal, this cannot be said for Black women due to beliefs that they are less likely to win in the general election.

These issues need to be:

A) recognized as real.

B) dealt with through education and normalization.

Ironically your style of comment is undermining A and B by saying none of this is real, and shutting down any conversation about potentially fixing it…

I’m not saying I like it or want it to be that way. There are a lot of people who prefer to ostrich about the problem than deal with it. Would me having said nothing or deleting my comments be better? Would me doing or saying nothing about the problem help to solve it?

Yeah I agree with you there. It’s going to be a free for all once that happens…

Yeah rejecting it doesn’t make it false… Just because 50% of the voting base are women doesn’t mean they’re feminists. There’s a lot of internalized misogyny.

Obama was a bridge too far for a ton of American voters and he was only a well educated light skinned black man… He still ticked all the other boxes for an American president. A female president is beyond the pale for a lot of Americans.

The Democrats are welcome to deny reality, ignore candidate popularity during primaries, kill all other candidate potential, and then lose the presidency again and act confused about why that happened… I guess the big thing they have going for them is trump isn’t allowed to run a 3rd time so the trump cult candidate will be a weaker option compared to trump himself.

There’s also the unfortunate consideration that she’s a woman. A black woman. That’s like playing on hardcore+ permadeath mode when it comes to elections…

I wish it wasn’t that way but it’s the reality in the US if you want a meaningful shot of winning… There is an unfortunate amount of voters who just won’t vote for a woman or a POC…

Edit: it seems I triggered a lot of people intent on shooting the messenger. I should make it clear I don’t believe this myself, but it seems a lot of people are unused to seeing opposing views on this backed by sources.

Speaking of which, after reading some sources, it sounds like education is a pretty strong counter to these biases, although it needs to start a long time before an election. You don’t do 4 years of education in the 8 months leading up to the presidential election… It needs to start now.

Oh hi Freagle! And yeah you’re exactly right!

If the petrodollar fails that’s exactly what’s going to happen. The rest of the world won’t miss the opportunity to hamstring the US during their moment of weakness and ensure they turn into an insular, regional isolationist power. It’ll be well deserved too…

The founding myth of your nation is violence. I think it’s like asking if there will be snow in February (I’m Canadian btw)

Well when it hits 7 I mean they literally have no spare energy for anyone or anything else.

The death of the petrodollar will do a lot to encourage renewables. When you don’t have the US breathing down your neck to buy oil in USD to support their empire you can buy it with whatever currency you want and decarbonize. The current world order and its financial system is what’s kept us on fossil fuels for so long. You literally couldn’t get off of them meaningfully or you would piss off the US. Any attempt to change that system was met with arrest, revolution, or death for those who suggested it.

Specifically I’ve heard that about the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) which is the oil and gas industry’s equivalent to Levellized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE)

for reference the spindle top formation in Texas (that started the oil boom and kicked industrialization into high gear) was an EROEI of 100:1. You burn a barrel of energy, get 100 barrels.

Nowadays things are far more bleak… Our average EROEI is around 12-14 as a global average. Tar sands is 2-4. Shale oil (fracking) isn’t much better at around 4-6, sometimes less.

As an aside on why fracking is so low: you put a loooot of energy into drilling and banging, and then you lose 70% of your flow after a year. 2 years after drilling the well is dead and you need to do it all over again.

A lot of economists (and other experts) have placed a point of no return for the world economy around an EROEI of 7, which we should reach in roughly 10-15 years.

Once energy returns get that low the oil industry exists to support the oil industry. There isn’t enough surplus energy to run a complex globalized nation. It’s a bit like starvation when all we’ve known is a surplus of calories for 200 years.