In studying campaigns since 1960, I haven't seen anything like this. In the history of American elections, don't the majority almost always choose, even if narrowly, the more optimistic, hopeful message, rather than darkness and grievance? By nearly every measure, Kamala is the better candidate. It is difficult to conceive that the America I think I know will choose Trump. Admittedly, I am not impartial, but the rhythm and momentum of this campaign seem so much on the side of Harris. https://jimbuie.substack.com/t/2024-election
good summary. I took a Taxi ride this morning. The company's name is Patriots. The driver began a diatribe favoring the former guy. I sat in silence while he sounded off on a diatribe against "evil" democrats. I didn't engage in dialogue. Every word he spoke was a sample of fans of the former guy.
Did anyone watch Jimmy Kimmel last night? He asked his fans to send his anti-Trump monologue to their Trump-supporting friends. I don’t know how someone could watch that monologue and vote for Trump without knowing at some level that they are doing something terribly wrong. But I was thinking about the part where Kimmel mentioned the “I support Trump because he pisses off the people who piss me off” t-shirt, and a “thought experiment” came to mind.
I’m imagining a guy wearing the shirt asking me if I understand why he’s pissed off, so I tell him about an actual experiment I’ve been conducting for roughly three years. Each experiment involves telling someone that science is based on a principle. I tell them that anyone can observe, assume, and draw a conclusion, but that’s not science. Science involves careful observation, and it involves subjecting one’s assumptions to rigorous skepticism (ref: 1st paragraph of Wikipedia’s “Scientific Method” article). Then I tell the Trump supporter what happens when I conduct the experiment.
Some people with science degrees tell me that I’ve described their understanding of science. People that don’t have science degrees generally tell me they’d never heard of a scientific principle, but it makes sense. The other people with science degrees treat my message like it’s a problem with a one-step “neutralize threat” solution that is typically some version of “I’m right, you’re wrong, and this conversation is over.” Then I’m imagining the Trump supporter saying, “Yeah, that’s it. That third group are just like the people who piss me off. That’s why I support Trump. Do you?”
My “thought experiment” answer is, “Like you, I’m pissed off, and like you, I want things to change, but unlike you, I want changes that make things better, and I don’t want changes that make things worse.” And that’s the end of the thought experiment.
So, who are these people with science degrees who don’t want to their assumptions about anything subjected to skepticism (rigorous or otherwise, and including the scientific principle)? So far, they’ve been people who’ve had very successful careers, and that led me to a testable but not-yet-tested hypothesis. They work(ed) in dysfunctional organizations and perceive(d) the need to act like a bully to get things done, and so they’ve developed an “act like a bully” bad habit.
IMHO, if you’re someone who hands out elementary school graduation certificates to children who don’t understand the scientific principle, then a very simple way to make things much better is by making sure that they do.
There’s a world of difference between the righteous—those who offer people who disagree with them a seat at the table—and the self-righteous—those who don’t. Trump supporters can’t tell the difference. We don’t need to make the same mistake.
There are many people who say/think that science disproves the existence of God. They need to read Lee Strobel’s books. He went to report on a Christian conference as an atheist and left believing that Christianity was right. He tested his hypothesis with discussions with prominent scientists from every field. They concluded unanimously that evolution may have some explanatory value, but it occurred over millions of years. I believe in intelligent design, and the scientists he interviewed confirmed that we, the humans and animals on this earth were elegantly and intelligently designed. These were scientists who understood the scientific principle. It’s more than the lack of understanding the scientific principle that underlies the support of Trump. They don’t have the skill of critical thinking or information bias.
Atheism for Dummies: How to think like an atheist in three easy steps.
Step 1: Adopt a self-evidently irrational definition of God or invent one yourself.
Step 2: Use your definition of God to "prove" that belief in God is self-evidently irrational.
Step 3: Pat yourself of the back.
WARNING: Avoid people who engage in unfair practices like real theologists. They’ll reveal relevant evidence, or they might spot a flaw in your logic. Worst case scenario, you’ll be forced to face an inconvenient truth, and you don’t want that to happen.
Fascinating how clickbait can tangentialize a discussion about just about anything. Here is Heather discussing the election and you two go off on intelligent design and atheism. Well, how about reading "1984" again.
Why should I read "1984" again? Authoritarianism is bad and egalitarianism is good. Right?
As for intelligent design, define intelligent design. People who think there's some white guy with a white beard in the sky designing nature are not being rational, but the designs of nature are incredibly intelligent in the sense that they're creative, and they work.
And it's not tangential. It's on point. Learn by observing, assuming, drawing a conclusion, and then testing your assumptions, or avoid testing your assumptions, and then you're learning like a chicken in a Skinner box, which was what Orwell's warning was about.
Heather. Thank you for an uplifting and encouraging newsletter and review of Kamala’s speech at the ellipse.
In 6 days “we’ll have the power to rewrite history by electing our 1st woman president.
There are so many uplifting Kamala quotes! All of which are in direct opposition to Trump’s policies:
*When we fight, we win!
* We plan to treat people, ALL people fairly
*We will Build concrete consensus
*We will Work WITH Congress
*We will Lower Costs
How refreshing and promising is her agenda is to work with all Americans to reach a common ground and put country over party while protecting reproduction rights?
She truly espouses a love for our country by stating her belief that America can not be a vessel for “those who want to be dictators.”
I am terrified about Election Day and the following week. I find it almost impossible to believe that the polls are so close and close to half the country have stated a preference for Trump. I can’t imagine his being elected, but the fact that it seems a possibility scares. I also fear the turmoil that will erupt if he loses (hopefully). He will never shut up, and I fear the consequences of his losing. He has shown us before the lengths he will go to on 1/6/21; it will likely be worse. I can’t understand why so many Republicans have remained silent. Mitch McConnell expressed his criticism so forcefully, but then said he would support him. Someone even said he would vote for him “because he was on the same team “. There’s only one team- the USA.
That depends on where you put the apostrophe. We still, at least for right now, have freedom of speech. Biden is not on the ballot. He can say anything he wants. Kamala disavowed his comment. The other guy loved the statements made by those on the stage of his "love fest".
That interpretation doesn't track with anything Biden has said or done as president. What he said sounds exactly like the clarification he gave. The media just can't resist poking a hornet's nest.
Having heard Heather do Trump then Harris, I'm thinking she might start a political career herself someplace where I could vote for her! Well spoken! And, Harris is going to win this, so there will be more place for ideas with intelligence from Tuesday on.
I think we aan see the astonishing writing on the wall. Half of the country is out of their fucking minds.
In studying campaigns since 1960, I haven't seen anything like this. In the history of American elections, don't the majority almost always choose, even if narrowly, the more optimistic, hopeful message, rather than darkness and grievance? By nearly every measure, Kamala is the better candidate. It is difficult to conceive that the America I think I know will choose Trump. Admittedly, I am not impartial, but the rhythm and momentum of this campaign seem so much on the side of Harris. https://jimbuie.substack.com/t/2024-election
good summary. I took a Taxi ride this morning. The company's name is Patriots. The driver began a diatribe favoring the former guy. I sat in silence while he sounded off on a diatribe against "evil" democrats. I didn't engage in dialogue. Every word he spoke was a sample of fans of the former guy.
Hey! In Melbourne we'd simply say " Shut the fuck up and drive the cab!" What is WRONG with you guys?
Even though we have "the vote" women are still at risk to physical violence, more so than males. For safety we don't speak.....
Sadly, often the case here as well.
Did anyone watch Jimmy Kimmel last night? He asked his fans to send his anti-Trump monologue to their Trump-supporting friends. I don’t know how someone could watch that monologue and vote for Trump without knowing at some level that they are doing something terribly wrong. But I was thinking about the part where Kimmel mentioned the “I support Trump because he pisses off the people who piss me off” t-shirt, and a “thought experiment” came to mind.
I’m imagining a guy wearing the shirt asking me if I understand why he’s pissed off, so I tell him about an actual experiment I’ve been conducting for roughly three years. Each experiment involves telling someone that science is based on a principle. I tell them that anyone can observe, assume, and draw a conclusion, but that’s not science. Science involves careful observation, and it involves subjecting one’s assumptions to rigorous skepticism (ref: 1st paragraph of Wikipedia’s “Scientific Method” article). Then I tell the Trump supporter what happens when I conduct the experiment.
Some people with science degrees tell me that I’ve described their understanding of science. People that don’t have science degrees generally tell me they’d never heard of a scientific principle, but it makes sense. The other people with science degrees treat my message like it’s a problem with a one-step “neutralize threat” solution that is typically some version of “I’m right, you’re wrong, and this conversation is over.” Then I’m imagining the Trump supporter saying, “Yeah, that’s it. That third group are just like the people who piss me off. That’s why I support Trump. Do you?”
My “thought experiment” answer is, “Like you, I’m pissed off, and like you, I want things to change, but unlike you, I want changes that make things better, and I don’t want changes that make things worse.” And that’s the end of the thought experiment.
So, who are these people with science degrees who don’t want to their assumptions about anything subjected to skepticism (rigorous or otherwise, and including the scientific principle)? So far, they’ve been people who’ve had very successful careers, and that led me to a testable but not-yet-tested hypothesis. They work(ed) in dysfunctional organizations and perceive(d) the need to act like a bully to get things done, and so they’ve developed an “act like a bully” bad habit.
IMHO, if you’re someone who hands out elementary school graduation certificates to children who don’t understand the scientific principle, then a very simple way to make things much better is by making sure that they do.
There’s a world of difference between the righteous—those who offer people who disagree with them a seat at the table—and the self-righteous—those who don’t. Trump supporters can’t tell the difference. We don’t need to make the same mistake.
There are many people who say/think that science disproves the existence of God. They need to read Lee Strobel’s books. He went to report on a Christian conference as an atheist and left believing that Christianity was right. He tested his hypothesis with discussions with prominent scientists from every field. They concluded unanimously that evolution may have some explanatory value, but it occurred over millions of years. I believe in intelligent design, and the scientists he interviewed confirmed that we, the humans and animals on this earth were elegantly and intelligently designed. These were scientists who understood the scientific principle. It’s more than the lack of understanding the scientific principle that underlies the support of Trump. They don’t have the skill of critical thinking or information bias.
Atheism for Dummies: How to think like an atheist in three easy steps.
Step 1: Adopt a self-evidently irrational definition of God or invent one yourself.
Step 2: Use your definition of God to "prove" that belief in God is self-evidently irrational.
Step 3: Pat yourself of the back.
WARNING: Avoid people who engage in unfair practices like real theologists. They’ll reveal relevant evidence, or they might spot a flaw in your logic. Worst case scenario, you’ll be forced to face an inconvenient truth, and you don’t want that to happen.
Fascinating how clickbait can tangentialize a discussion about just about anything. Here is Heather discussing the election and you two go off on intelligent design and atheism. Well, how about reading "1984" again.
Why should I read "1984" again? Authoritarianism is bad and egalitarianism is good. Right?
As for intelligent design, define intelligent design. People who think there's some white guy with a white beard in the sky designing nature are not being rational, but the designs of nature are incredibly intelligent in the sense that they're creative, and they work.
And it's not tangential. It's on point. Learn by observing, assuming, drawing a conclusion, and then testing your assumptions, or avoid testing your assumptions, and then you're learning like a chicken in a Skinner box, which was what Orwell's warning was about.
Heather. Thank you for an uplifting and encouraging newsletter and review of Kamala’s speech at the ellipse.
In 6 days “we’ll have the power to rewrite history by electing our 1st woman president.
There are so many uplifting Kamala quotes! All of which are in direct opposition to Trump’s policies:
*When we fight, we win!
* We plan to treat people, ALL people fairly
*We will Build concrete consensus
*We will Work WITH Congress
*We will Lower Costs
How refreshing and promising is her agenda is to work with all Americans to reach a common ground and put country over party while protecting reproduction rights?
She truly espouses a love for our country by stating her belief that America can not be a vessel for “those who want to be dictators.”
I am terrified about Election Day and the following week. I find it almost impossible to believe that the polls are so close and close to half the country have stated a preference for Trump. I can’t imagine his being elected, but the fact that it seems a possibility scares. I also fear the turmoil that will erupt if he loses (hopefully). He will never shut up, and I fear the consequences of his losing. He has shown us before the lengths he will go to on 1/6/21; it will likely be worse. I can’t understand why so many Republicans have remained silent. Mitch McConnell expressed his criticism so forcefully, but then said he would support him. Someone even said he would vote for him “because he was on the same team “. There’s only one team- the USA.
What an incredible speech, it summed up so aptly the character, the promises, and the hopes for our future. 🇺🇸
Wow! I wish I had said that. We are all Americans. We have the power!!
Just out of curiosity, do you narrate your own narrated newsletter? Is that your voice, Heather, that we are listening to? Thanks!
It is Heather! Check her out on many youtubes.
https://youtu.be/La9-ipd_A94?si=2AYoulUFXJJLV1Oc
Right. And Biden just called Trump voters "garbage."
That depends on where you put the apostrophe. We still, at least for right now, have freedom of speech. Biden is not on the ballot. He can say anything he wants. Kamala disavowed his comment. The other guy loved the statements made by those on the stage of his "love fest".
That interpretation doesn't track with anything Biden has said or done as president. What he said sounds exactly like the clarification he gave. The media just can't resist poking a hornet's nest.
Don't disagree, just unfortunate
A must read.......Real Patriots for Democracy!!
Professor, please look at this piece by Elie Mystal in The Nation:
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/little-secret-trump-johnson-election/
This seems like a terribly plausible way to steal the election.
Having heard Heather do Trump then Harris, I'm thinking she might start a political career herself someplace where I could vote for her! Well spoken! And, Harris is going to win this, so there will be more place for ideas with intelligence from Tuesday on.
Please send written transcripts
You can click on Transcripts tab right under the recording box-
Been trying to point out that they have succefully used the double-bind tactic on her. Either way she answers is wrong, yet she has to say something.
She finally started hitting the points instead of talking as a lawyer. It's too late is my fear.