The Race For 2024

[ZiprHead]

Derek’s particular world view seems to see most relationships in transactional terms, including sexual relationships.

Depends on your definition of "transactional". In the widest sense, if we extend the meaning of "transactions" to companionship, fulfillment of emotional needs, even attraction, then yes, (almost) all romantic/sexual relationships are transactional. Almost nobody would stay in a relationship lest there is something in it for them.

But even restricting it to what most people mean by that term, things like better standard of living, gifts, K1 or spousal visa, many relationships are still transactional. Especially when you have a big difference in age or attractiveness between the partners.

I will leave you with some wisdom from Larissa: "The wife[sic] are the most expensive prostitutes ever, darling".

How cute. Derek thinks reality TV is real.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I will leave you with some wisdom from Larissa: "The wife[sic] are the most expensive prostitutes ever, darling".

if all a man wanted out of a woman was sexual intercourse it would indeed be poor economics to marry her.

Makes you think that husbands may be getting more out their relationships with their wives than just sex. Is that even possible??

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I will leave you with some wisdom from Larissa: "The wife[sic] are the most expensive prostitutes ever, darling".

if all a man wanted out of a woman was sexual intercourse it would indeed be poor economics to marry her.

Makes you think that husbands may be getting more out their relationships with their wives than just sex. Is that even possible??

I certainly hope so!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's cost prohibitive but here you could make a fan-only HVAC system that would be acceptable to most people. Just pull the air through enough underground space on the way into the house.

Or just do as they do in Coober Pedy, and make an underground space into a house.

They only go deep enough to moderate the effects, not eliminate them. And in most of the world if you go deep enough to eliminate temperature variation it's too cold for comfort.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where do they spell “whipping” with no ‘h’?

English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them down and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.

People are always saying this.

But where do we steal grammar from?? It's words we take.

And mugging them isn't the right model. English is a pirate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

​

Does this mean the Democrats will actually now do something about corporate electoral financing reform or will they just take the money and run?

Overturn the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling how, precisely? Explain how our parliament can unilaterally ignore or abolish High Court rulings whilst you're at it kthnx.

Protection of free speech inherently means protecting unpopular speech--nobody's trying to block popular speech. I think the only way to change Citizens United is via constitutional amendment and I don't think it's a good idea, anyway--there are enough actors beyond our borders that there's no point to closing the barn door.

 

[robnisch]

Where do they spell “whipping” with no ‘h’?

English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them down and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.

People are always saying this.

But where do we steal grammar from?? It's words we take.

And mugging them isn't the right model. English is a pirate.

William the Conqueror may disagree with that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I

Explain how our parliament can unilaterally ignore or abolish High Court rulings whilst you're at it kthnx.

The Gospel of Donald Trump says you only need a few thousand angry morons and some AK47s. You can create your own 2nd Amendment after the deed is done.

AK47s!?! Never! The will use good murcan AR 15s.

Some of the Putin lovers might.

I general, I agree, though. The AK47 is a very good gun for it's mission--which was to be the Timex of guns. But the gravy seals don't expect to need their gun to work in adverse conditions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But even restricting it to what most people mean by that term, things like better standard of living, gifts, K1 or spousal visa, many relationships are still transactional. Especially when you have a big difference in age or attractiveness between the partners.

Disagree. Most relationships are close to parity--we only notice the odd cases.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Would you oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran?

Preemptive strike?

The technical term is sucker punch.

I'm sure the point was questioning the "preemptive" part--you can't preempt what's already happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Derek’s particular world view seems to see most relationships in transactional terms, including sexual relationships.

Depends on your definition of "transactional". In the widest sense, if we extend the meaning of "transactions" to companionship, fulfillment of emotional needs, even attraction, then yes, (almost) all romantic/sexual relationships are transactional. Almost nobody would stay in a relationship lest there is something in it for them.

Certainly many relationships have some transactional aspects to them: I’ll change this poopy diaper but you are doing dinner. I’ll work this crappy job while you finish your educational program and then I get to go back to school. It was not transactional when I made my ( much higher earning) husband get checked out by good doctors or that motivated me to sit in the family waiting room waiting for results of his surgery. Frankly, if he had dyed, I would have been financially better off, as I would have gotten a substantial payment from his life insurance and the entire balance of the retirement account plus all material assets, instead of splitting those with him. He did not provided comfort and support when I lost both parents in less than 3 months because there was something in it fir him, nor did I provide comfort and support to repay him but because I love and care for him and loved and cared for my in-laws. We love each other. . Those ‘transactional’ examples I gave above are really about division of labor and assets ( time).

I think it’s clear that you and I don’t just have different t world views but we also know different kinds of people. I’m not interested in the lip filler crowd. It’s weird to me that they exist, much less that they are displayed on screens in peoples homes and people watch them. Why????

His first part (what I have quoted) remains relevant. People aren't in a relationship for nothing, they get something out of it. Thus it comes down to degree. And your examples do not rebut that--finances aren't the only value one gets from a relationship. If he had changed the color of something you would have more money but a lack of love.

In most relationships nobody is truly keeping score, but if things are too far out of balance people tend to take note and leave the relationship if possible.

 

[Derec]

Thing of it is: If the candidate was white and male with the EXACT SAME qualifications and experience, the righties would not say a word about a DEI hire.

Duh! Because Biden would not have restricted his selection to only white men.
However, had a white man had the same qualifications, experience and lack of judgment during his 2019 race, he would be criticized on the same grounds she is being criticized.
I.e. the choice would be just as lackluster, only without the DEI part.

 

[Derec]

To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the fact that she had many excellent professional qualifications as well as being a nationally recognized political figure.

To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the pledge Biden made.
Of course she has qualification and experience, but she was selected from a very restricted pool of possible running mates.

She was in the 2020 primaries, which one dies not normally ruse to without significant backing.

Kamala Harris had very significant backing. Hillary's bundlers flocked to her early.
From February 2019: Kamala Harris Gets Big Boost From Longtime Hillary Clinton Supporter
Then from April: Kamala Harris takes early lead in the big-money race
But she wasn't able to sustain this momentum. She mismanaged her campaign, leading to it hemorrhaging money, and she made questionable strategic and tactical choices, such as attacking Biden on busing.
All that led to her campaign faltering and finally she decided to throw in the towel even before 2020 rolled around.

Again, given the centuries of history when all candidates were chosen from the pool of white men, it seems a bit rich to see ( checks notes) white men complain that she was chosen because of her race and gender.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Being inclusive does not mean excluding 93% of the population who are not black(ish) women.

Nobody is complaining about the ( checks notes again) white men chosen as running mates in the 2024 presidential election.

And nobody would be complaining if Trump had chosen, say, Nikki Haley. And not even had Kamala Harris chosen, say, Gretchen Whitmer would too many people have complained.
It is not a particular selection that is the problem, but artificially restricting choices for running mate, SCOTUS justice (that Biden did this one to de facto buy South Carolina makes it even worse!) or US Senator from California.

Could it be because for some people, the most qualified candidates just by coincidence happen to be white and male?

Often we are. They should not be excluded just because of our race and gender.

I mean, what other qualification does Trump have? What has he accomplished? What does he offer?

He won the primaries (3x), and then the general (1x). Trump wasn't selected, he ran and won in a crowded field. Like what Kamala tried to do and failed. That makes it a very different kettle of fish.

 

[Derec]

No, I'm not. It just makes very little sense in this context. An individual cannot be "diverse".

Thank you! I think this misuse is because for many people, "diverse" just means "not white". Same misconception as when they claim with a straight face that HBCUs like Morehouse are "the most diverse colleges in the US" when in fact they are the least diverse.

 

[laughing dog]

To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the fact that she had many excellent professional qualifications as well as being a nationally recognized political figure.

To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the pledge Biden made.
Of course she has qualification and experience, but she was selected from a very restricted pool of possible running mates.

All VP candidates are selected from a very restricted pool.

 

[Derec]

VP Harris certainly has a history of being a professional, particularly in law and justice.

True.

JD Vance doesn't have much of a record at all, prior to becoming a Senator less than two years ago, he was a furniture hobbyist successful private equity guy, who wasn't big on the little guy, who wrote a book about a region he didn't grow up in.

Here we go again with libels about Vance. And no, the strikethrough does not make it ok.
Vance was in private equity and is a successful author (his book was made into a Ron Howard movie. He was also a Marine.
I do not like his politics much either, he is a radical social conservative, but let's not pretend that he hasn't accomplished a good amount in his 40 years on Earth.

I'm absolutely uncertain what Vance brings to Trump's campaign other than youth and being a true believer in 2025 and part of the Christian Dominionism movement. JD Vance isn't a Trump guy (if there is such a thing), he is a Stephan Miller guy.

He doesn't do much electorally, you are right. I also do not think Walz is doing that much for Harris campaign either, so there's that.

 

[Derec]

All VP candidates are selected from a very restricted pool.

Duh! Nobody is saying otherwise. But Biden restricted it further by 93% by only considering black women.
Same goes for his SCOTUS pick as well as Gov. Goodhair's pick for US Senator from California.

 

[laughing dog]

All VP candidates are selected from a very restricted pool.

Duh! Nobody is saying otherwise. But Biden restricted it further by 93% by only considering black women.
Same goes for his SCOTUS pick as well as Gov. Goodhair's pick for US Senator from California.

You are complaining that the pool was too restricted. But you have no clue whether the pool was smaller than other VP pools.

 

[Toni]

To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the fact that she had many excellent professional qualifications as well as being a nationally recognized political figure.

To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the pledge Biden made.
Of course she has qualification and experience, but she was selected from a very restricted pool of possible running mates.

She was in the 2020 primaries, which one dies not normally ruse to without significant backing.

Kamala Harris had very significant backing. Hillary's bundlers flocked to her early.
From February 2019: Kamala Harris Gets Big Boost From Longtime Hillary Clinton Supporter
Then from April: Kamala Harris takes early lead in the big-money race
But she wasn't able to sustain this momentum. She mismanaged her campaign, leading to it hemorrhaging money, and she made questionable strategic and tactical choices, such as attacking Biden on busing.
All that led to her campaign faltering and finally she decided to throw in the towel even before 2020 rolled around.

Again, given the centuries of history when all candidates were chosen from the pool of white men, it seems a bit rich to see ( checks notes) white men complain that she was chosen because of her race and gender.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Being inclusive does not mean excluding 93% of the population who are not black(ish) women.

Nobody is complaining about the ( checks notes again) white men chosen as running mates in the 2024 presidential election.

And nobody would be complaining if Trump had chosen, say, Nikki Haley. And not even had Kamala Harris chosen, say, Gretchen Whitmer would too many people have complained.
It is not a particular selection that is the problem, but artificially restricting choices for running mate, SCOTUS justice (that Biden did this one to de facto buy South Carolina makes it even worse!) or US Senator from California.

Could it be because for some people, the most qualified candidates just by coincidence happen to be white and male?

Often we are. They should not be excluded just because of our race and gender.

I mean, what other qualification does Trump have? What has he accomplished? What does he offer?

He won the primaries (3x), and then the general (1x). Trump wasn't selected, he ran and won in a crowded field. Like what Kamala tried to do and failed. That makes it a very different kettle of fish.

Why is it that white people, especially white male people, especially over 50 years of age are more likely to have stellar education and experience?

Every pool of potential candidates for VP is quite small, and is restricted to those who have the right experience, education, national presence, can pass a very stringent background investigation. Heretofore, the candidate pool has been white and male. Biden made a deliberate choice to select someone outside of those last two parameters. If there were not over 200 years of history that specifically excluded blacks and females from the potential pool of candidates, there would have been no reason to make a deliberate choice outside of white male.

There are some people who are just more comfortable with certain types of people in certain positions. A lot of women prefer female gynecologists. Some people think that Jews are better attorneys or accountants. Some people believe that Asian or Hispanic people are the best gardeners. And who doesn’t love a French chef? Or a Belgian chocolatier? Or an Italian tailor or architect? Of course we do know that none of those characteristics ensue individuals with special affinity for certain lines of work. Most if us rightly are a bit offended at the idea.

But some of us are more comfortable with how things have always been.

 

[Derec]

YOU FIRST.

You made some claims of fact: that where you live Pandemic lockdowns and high unemployment persisted into 2022.
Should not be difficult to demonstrate, if it were true.

It is you who made a claim first, "Biden let Pandemic largess go on way too long" without any data.

I did provide data in other threads.
I will give you one piece of data. Expanded unemployment (which gave out extra $600/week at first and then extra $300 per week) only ended on 9/4/2021.
Restrictions on businesses being open ended around May 2021 in most states as vaccines became available.
Northeast: Northeast States Begin Lifting Restrictions and Announce Plans for Phased Reopening
Even California fully reopened businesses by June.

Other Pandemic largess took even longer to end. Expanded child tax credit expired at the end of 2021. Student loan repayment, amazingly, did not restart until October of, wait for it, 2023.

And hearing it on FauxNews doesn't count as a citation.

I am guessing something like The Nation or DailyKos would?

Like Rump and Faux, you are spouting off OPINION and claiming it to be true. So I can too.

Saying something went on too long is a matter of judgment and opinion. That can be well informed, as in my case.
You made a claim of pure fact (when businesses where you live reopened after COVID) and you have failed to provide that information.

If it was up to Rump, there would have been no pandemic relief, he would have us work till we dropped.

Obvious nonsense. "Rump" was president when these measures were first implemented.