US Presidential Election 2024

[Aruntraveller]

I'm not sure whether this will help or hinder Trump but it is interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/02/melania-trump-memoir-defends-abortion-rights

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure whether this will help or hinder Trump but it is interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/02/melania-trump-memoir-defends-abortion-rights

It seems from what the article says to be a genuine position. Trump tries, again as the article covers, to be seen as having many positions on this. I think the anti abortion voters will go almost solidly for Trump with perhaps a few abstentions. Pro abortion  voters are I suspect a bit less monolithic as it is possible to be pro abortion and think it's a matter for the states. I doubt this will impact either group but it is as you say interesting
 

[Nearly Sane]

Trump lying again. This time about disaster relief money. Politics seems to degrade by the day.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3qgqxpwno

[Nearly Sane]

Would be hardly surprising if Netanyahu is aiming to get Trump elected.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cje3zl0dq2ko


I originally placed this on the Israel Hamas thread but it fits better here. So many of the pinned topics on Politocs are merging as the election approaches.

[Nearly Sane]

In other words "Events, dear boy, events"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz04n1kg1d4o

[Nearly Sane]

Apparently not AI but real

[Roses]

Apparently not AI but real

We saw that on the lunchtime news, Musk and Trump are completely off their heads, imo.

[Nearly Sane]

We saw that on the lunchtime news, Musk and Trump are completely off their heads, imo.

They are both clever grifters.

[Nearly Sane]

Very odd case, not sure why they released the bloke so quickly. Chad Bianco is a great name though, Matt's brother?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gqyezwj7lo

[Nearly Sane]

Not the most convincing interview from Harris. Still at least she did an interview, which she seems loathe to do generally.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgj4qyxlxn1o

[Christine]

Well how come you've missed the fact that Musk is a lying sleezeball?
Those two sources are probably amongst the most reliable.

The trouble with personal experience is that it always seems more real than the balanced picture. A lot of people had personal experiences on January 6th 2021. Many of them are now in prison. Many are traumatised. Some had life changing injuries and some are dead.

And yet you still cling to Tr*mp. He's far worse than Harris.

Hello Jeremy

I’ve had a look for negative stories about Musk, by the BBC, CNN, The Guardian and Business Insider, not his biggest fans. I can’t find any substantive criticism of him that identifies him as uniquely evil or of evil intent. He engages with the public. His views are public.

His Tesla shareholders (70% individuals) seem to like him. Keep voting for him anyway, even after they’ve been told he’s not worth it:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/musk-says-both-tesla-shareholder-resolutions-passing-by-wide-margins-2024-06-13/

Perhaps they’re all stupid?

I find SpaceX’s achievements inspiring. Amazing. Gives me hope that humans aren’t irredeemably selfish and shortsighted. He’s stood up to repressive state interference. He’s provided free comms to war zones and flood devastated regions of the US. You already know I think his acquisition of Twitter was a good thing. Can he be silly and offensive? Can’t we all?

I found some interesting articles about other billionaires though:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2022/07/how-bill-gates-makes-the-world-worse-off

https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/j-b-pritzker-governor-illinois

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/billionaire-family-pushing-synthetic-sex-identities-ssi-pritzkers

I can’t be bothered any more trying to find evidence to support your assertions for you. I’ll remain, on balance, pro reality, pro Musk and definitely anti Harris, who is demonstrating what an empty vessel she is ever more clearly, by the day.

I really hope she goes on Joe Rogan. That I wouldn’t miss for the world. Listening to him school Matt Walsh in critical thinking was a lot of fun.

[ad_orientem]

Joe "I'm only asking questions" Rogan and critical thinking don't go together, I'm afraid.

[Christine]

Joe "I'm only asking questions" Rogan and critical thinking don't go together, I'm afraid.

He aks questions, yes. Then he listens to the answers, engages with the argument and presents evidence for his own position.

I choose what I listen to of his and pick guests that interest me. I find him interesting, honest, entertaining and well-informed. I would absolutely love to listen to Harris talk to him for 3 hours. I'm fairly sure she won't, sadly.

[Aruntraveller]

You already know I think his acquisition of Twitter was a good thing

Even though the evidence of how badly moderated (not at all moderated) X is, you still maintain this position. I am saddened.

[Nearly Sane]

Musk actively spreads disinformation.  He also doesn't stand up to state interference when it suits him not to in such as China. He's a grifter, if a very successful one. There are active threats allowed on Twitter, Aruntraveller has provided example previously as regards homosexuality.

[Christine]

Even though the evidence of how badly moderated (not at all moderated) X is, you still maintain this position. I am saddened.

Given the evidence of political manipulation on behalf of governments and powerful lobby groups by other social media platforms, I think it's just as well there is a counterbalance.

I stand by what I said before. Preventing people from expressing opinions you find offensive, dangerous, ill-informed etc is counter-productive. The antidote to speech you disagree with is more speech, facts and good arguments. We have laws against incitement to crime and making threats already, which are being enforced (though not without prejudice).

I see Starmer has had Bill Gates and the CEO of Blackrock round for tea at No 10. I feel the same way about that as I did about Blair inviting Rupert Murdoch in. I certainly don't trust any of them to decide what "misinformation" is. Often it boils down to information they don't like.

I don't think it's sad that we disagree. I disagree with people, some of them friends, about many things. It'd be boring otherwise, and a recipe for being wrong. In my opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Musk actively spreads disinformation.  He also doesn't stand up to state interference when it suits him not to in such as China. He's a grifter, if a very successful one. There are active threats allowed on Twitter, Aruntraveller has provided example previously as regards homosexuality.

Twitter is definitely on a downwards trend and I could see this hitting a tipping point quite soon.

People use twitter, not because it is the best and certainly not because they love Musk. Nope they use it because everyone else does - it is a matter of utility. But the point about that is that if people start drifting away it doesn't take long before it becomes a rush - as the reason for using it (cos everyone else does) not longer applies.

In my opinion, one mistake Musk has made since acquiring twitter is to use it as his own personal mouthpiece. The point about twitter is that it is a technology that allows everyone to share their views and once it seems to be a mouthpiece for its owner (a kind of privileged rich boy plaything) it has lost a lot of its appeal as people begin to feel that by using twitter they are seen to be endorsing Musk and his views. This is why plenty of large organisations are now moving off twitter as they do not want to be seen to be guilty by association.

He would have been better advised to have completely avoid using twitter as the mouthpiece for his personal views.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the demise of Twitter has been predicted many times. I'm not convinced we're there yet simply because there is no competitor at the moment emerging. There are lots of niche alternatives  which do well in their areas but that's because they are niche whether in terms of interest, or politics, or questions about security.

I don't think Musk really cares other than not losing too much money what happens to Twitter. I think he bought it primarily as a political move to allow him to have his own personal mouthpiece and to influence politics for his other businesses, and to prepare for him to take a more active political role. I think at the time he was brand agnostic in terms of the political strand he would go for but with a leaning to Trump. When his sounding bore fruit he tacked that way.

There's a part, a very small dark part, which would like to see Trump winning appointing Musk to the trailed Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, to see the inevitable fall put between them for the entertainment value.

[jeremyp]

Hello Jeremy

I’ve had a look for negative stories about Musk, by the BBC, CNN, The Guardian and Business Insider, not his biggest fans. I can’t find any substantive criticism of him that identifies him as uniquely evil or of evil intent. He engages with the public. His views are public.

I didn't say he is evil, I said he is a lying sleazeball.

His Tesla shareholders (70% individuals) seem to like him. Keep voting for him anyway, even after they’ve been told he’s not worth it:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/musk-says-both-tesla-shareholder-resolutions-passing-by-wide-margins-2024-06-13/

Perhaps they’re all stupid?

Well the problem is that the share price of Tesla is way over a reasonable price for a company with similar financials. This is the Musk bullshit factor at work. If he runs away, the price will correct itself leaving the existing shareholders mostly with big losses.

They have a big problem because if he goes, they will lose some money but if he stays, Tesla cannot be run like a proper car company and he will eventually destroy it.

I find SpaceX’s achievements inspiring. Amazing. Gives me hope that humans aren’t irredeemably selfish and shortsighted. He’s stood up to repressive state interference.

No he hasn't. He's whined about having to comply with federal regulations but he has complied - mostly. Of course, when it comes to real repressive regimes like India and China, he rolls over because they are worth too much money to him.

 He’s provided free comms to war zones

No. The US government and Ukraine are paying for Starlink.

and flood devastated regions of the US.

I'll grant that although Internet connectivity isn't worth much when you have no electricity.

You already know I think his acquisition of Twitter was a good thing. Can he be silly and offensive? Can’t we all?

Many people think it was a good thing because he is destroying it. Can you imagine the head of any other advertising company telling his customers to fuck off and then sue them for doing so? Musk is a man-child. He needs to grow up.

I can’t be bothered any more trying to find evidence to support your assertions for you. I’ll remain, on balance, pro reality, pro Musk and definitely anti Harris, who is demonstrating what an empty vessel she is ever more clearly, by the day.

The trouble with being anti-Harris is that it makes you pro-Tr*mp and I know you are enthusiastic about women's rights. Well Tr*mp has admitted to sexually assaulting women and he's the leader of the party that took away their abortion rights.

He's also very anti-democracy because, in a real democracy, he would lose every time.

I really hope she goes on Joe Rogan. That I wouldn’t miss for the world. Listening to him school Matt Walsh in critical thinking was a lot of fun.

Matt Walsh is an idiot. That's a low bar.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find SpaceX’s achievements inspiring.

Do you? I don't.

In fact I think it is remarkable how little progress has been made in my lifetime (I was born in 1966). I think that when I was 3 and the first men were landing on the moon and you asked how more much progress would have been made 55 years later people would be astonished at how little.

And the 'achievements' of SpaceX seem entirely to be caveated by 'privately-funded' or 'commercial'. So none of them are about actual technological developments, but about where the money came from. So should we really be impressed by the first 'commercial' spacewalk in 2024 when the first spacewalk took place a year before I was born.

And the SpaceX hype often mentions pioneering reusable boosters - but surely the Space Shuttle had recoverable and reusable boosters as far back as 1980. 

So what exactly does SpaceX technology do (that is fundamentally valuable, rather than just a first for a funding mode) that hasn't been done decades ago.

[jeremyp]

Do you? I don't.

In fact I think it is remarkable how little progress has been made in my lifetime (I was born in 1966). I think that when I was 3 and the first men were landing on the moon and you asked how more much progress would have been made 55 years later people would be astonished at how little.

And the 'achievements' of SpaceX seem entirely to be caveated by 'privately-funded' or 'commercial'. So none of them are about actual technological developments, but about where the money came from. So should we really be impressed by the first 'commercial' spacewalk in 2024 when the first spacewalk took place a year before I was born.

And the SpaceX hype often mentions pioneering reusable boosters - but surely the Space Shuttle had recoverable and reusable boosters as far back as 1980. 

So what exactly does SpaceX technology do (that is fundamentally valuable, rather than just a first for a funding mode) that hasn't been done decades ago.

The Space Shuttle also had a reusable orbital vehicle which SpaceX doesn't yet.

[Christine]

Just in general...

I don't think the Tesla shareholders are too stupid to understand their own long-term interests.

On balance, I think women's rights are more fundamentally at risk from people who think the word "woman" is meaningless than from Trump.
 
There are lying sleazeball abusers in all parties, everywhere. Which is why it's a good idea not to tie your politics to personalities. When I say "I like" Musk or RFKJ, I mean (which I thought would be obvious given I haven't claimed to know any of these people personally) that, on balance, I find what they say and do more in line with my values than their opponents. I don't have to "like" everything they say and do, and I don't.

If you object to the stalling of space exploration in recent decades, I think you might want to point the finger at NASA rather than Elon Musk.

I won't apologise for what I find inspiring.

If Joe Rogan is hopeless, then Harris will be able to run rings around him. 3 hours to talk about herself and her politics. Surely she won't turn the opportunity down? I believe Trump is going on. Good for him. I expect it will be an excruciating listen, but I will listen, just like I'd listen to Harris. I have listened to Harris. 

[ProfessorDavey]

The Space Shuttle also had a reusable orbital vehicle which SpaceX doesn't yet.

Yup.

Seems that there is pretty well nothing that the current crop of super-rich bloke companies have developed that has previously been developed and used many decades ago.

The recent vehicle landing and grabbing of the booster was impressive, but left me thinking why? Surely you could much more easily use parachute technology plus some guide boosters to bring the booster back to the place you want it.

[jeremyp]

Yup.

Seems that there is pretty well nothing that the current crop of super-rich bloke companies have developed that has previously been developed and used many decades ago.

The recent vehicle landing and grabbing of the booster was impressive, but left me thinking why? Surely you could much more easily use parachute technology plus some guide boosters to bring the booster back to the place you want it.

The idea is that recovery is quicker. You don't have to send a ship out into the open ocean to pick it up and put it back on the launch pad.

I'm not totally convinced myself: the current technology means relighting a number of rocket engines that have already been used quite hard, as well as launching with extra fuel in order to come down, which reduces your payload.

I'm even less convinced about the recovery plan for the orbital vehicle. Again you have to rely on relighting engines that have been used hard - and in the vacuum of space and have survived reentry. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they decide they need to put wings on the upper stage and land it like a glider.

[ProfessorDavey]

The idea is that recovery is quicker. You don't have to send a ship out into the open ocean to pick it up and put it back on the launch pad.

I understand that, but there is a clear middle ground between the 'catch' system and the unguided pitch into the sea. Surely it would be much easier and cheaper to use the basic guidance system to move the boosters to a defined landing site as they drift down using good old fashioned parachutes.

I'm not totally convinced myself: the current technology means relighting a number of rocket engines that have already been used quite hard, as well as launching with extra fuel in order to come down, which reduces your payload.

I agree too on that. And I can't see that a booster would be simply reused without considerable checking, replacement of some parts, refuelling etc. All of this seems more significant than dropping it back on the launch pad as you'd probably simply need to take it off the launch pad again to prepare it for reuse.

The lessons from the space shuttle programme tells us that the work and care before reuse is kind of critical.

I'm even less convinced about the recovery plan for the orbital vehicle. Again you have to rely on relighting engines that have been used hard - and in the vacuum of space and have survived reentry. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they decide they need to put wings on the upper stage and land it like a glider.

Hey but it is 'privately' funded and 'commercial' so it must be a massive advance on ... err ... 1970s technology.