You lack crucial thinking skills and accept lots of dubious stuff as fact, just because someone posted it on a website. That was on full display in that vegan thread from hell. I'm trying to explain to you the issues with the data you shared. You are incapable of understanding basic logic.

Trump opposed the bill because it was a bad bill. It was DOA in the House, which is why Trump could "kill" it by simply saying it was a bad bill. The lie (LOL at MSNBC now being part of SpinCo...perfect name) was that Trump killed it because he was afraid the bill would help Biden and Harris. LOL at you all believing that. (And, yeah, "you all" means Kamala supporters in general, not every single one of you. Cry harder though.)

I read it and I agreed with it. I opined further, since you seem confused. I guess you weren't paying attention.

You seem confused about sexism too, feeling it can only be anti-woman and not anti-man. There was a gender bias on both sides. Kamala said people should vote for her because she's a woman. So did her supporters. Trump never said people should vote for him because he's a man. Which is more sexist? (I explained this to you already, but you were again confused).

Kamala got more votes from women because her campaign specifically appealed to the interests of women. LOL at (anti-woman) "sexism" as the cause of the gender disparity or of her loss.

Ty

I find chins better for the elbows than normal pull ups but we don’t have the ability to do neutral grip at my gym.

LOL "just because someone posted it on a website". That's what you're doing, my man. You just post random musings. Literally the only thing you posted a source for proved my point.

Only one of us actually seems to use facts. You just dismiss facts you don't like with, as you put it, "thinking skills". My favorite was "lol 15% isn't enough people".

Ah I remember that. Rich Muny says humans should just act like bears. We're the same, really. Chef's Kiss. Vintage Rich Muny

Nah, man. My logic is fine. The problem is not that I'm accepting facts. I'm not accepting your attempts at hand waving them away with your "critical thinking" as you put it. If these facts are false, why not find other facts to disprove them? We both know why.


I'm not a "Kamala supporter". I thought she was bad candidate. Reading is really tough for you. I voted for her. As I said I would vote for you over Trump. Anyone who would use that to call me a "Rich Muny supporter" would be way off the mark. It's clear that your command of the English language is quite tenuous, so you're just going to have to take my word on that.

With respect to Trump, as I said earlier, I can show you plenty of news reports saying that Trump killed the bill. I also linked to a report more or less saying Trump told republicans not to do anything on immigration because it would help Harris. You're going to say they're all b.s.. "Killed the bill" is such a subjective evaluation that it's not going anywhere. Once I realize that we're weren't on the same plane of reality as far as that is concerned there is no point in continuing it.

This is different from Stock market is up, Crime is not at all time highs, inflation is down. Those are indisputable.

Nah, I ignored it because it was the dumbest argument in the history of the universe. Mindflayer cited a source showing that sexism (against women) is real, systemic, and exists. Men don't have to say "vote for me because I'm a man". Do you know why? The answer is sexism.

The idea that Trump is somehow less sexist that Harris and actually benefits less from sexism than Harris is so idiotic that only a completely Trump-pilled (as Soulman correctly put it) person would believe it, let alone actually argue it. But sure, man, find me some facts (like Mindflayer posted) that actually show the existence of pervasive sexist attitudes against men. And by facts I don't mean "typing out random things that I think are facts", I mean actual sourced info. I'll wait. I'm sure it will be a long facking time, because you're the "dealer in facts" that doesn't actually know how to post facts.

This is a forum. We discuss our opinions here. You didn't know that?

Also, LOL at you believing that finding a poorly written article or a biased poll is confirmation of your opinions.

You thought more than 85% of Americans follow the news very closely? Do you ever get out?

We're omnivores, like bears. We should either act like it or expect to function very suboptimally.

If you voted for Kamala, then you're a Kamala supporter. It's that simple. Stop lying to yourself.

I didn't think we should have invaded Iraq, so I didn't vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004. I didn't vote for John Kerry because -- wait for it -- I didn't support John Kerry. My options were to vote third party or not at all. See how that works?

Killing something that is borderline dead? Many people killed it. But, as always, you missed the point. I already said Trump opposed that crappy bill, and correctly so. We're talking about MSNBC lying by claiming Trump opposed it because he didn't want Biden to get credit. See how objective that is when you actually pay attention? Too bad you're here only to argue.

You keep believing any opinion piece that makes it to the internet is a "fact". Yeah, there are more women voters than male voters, and we've had a woman as presidential or VP nominee of one of the two major parties in four of the last five elections. LOL though.

These aren't "facts". Since you lack critical thinking skills, I'll go step by step:

1. A Trump supporter might point out the fact that Joe and Kamala opened the borders and allowed millions to enter our nation. A Kamala supporter might say they finally reinstated some of Trump's EOs and brought the rate down in time for the election (though the illegals are still here). Which "fact" was in the survey? Oh yeah, the pro-Kamala one. Same for the other three questions.
2. Someone who doesn't follow the news a lot but who watches a little MSNBC would be far more exposed to the pro-Kamala talking point than someone similar who watches a little Fox News or Newsmax. The Fox News / Newsmax viewers would be equally exposed to information, but they'd learn more about total illegal immigration during Biden-Kamala. And, since it's true/false, one merely had to have an opinion to answer. No one was asked if they knew the actual numbers.
3. Finally, truly low information Kamala voters would be more likely to answer "true" to pro-Kamala talking points, as people who think things are going well were far more likely to vote for Kamala.
   

I hope this explanation will help to school you on critical thinking.

As a random aside, Joey Boden preceded over one of the largest inflationary periods of any American president (modern). While there may be some debate on supply side inflation (which is allegedly transient, which is also ******ed), we seem to have a general consensus that tarriffs are inflationary.

So how much was inflation exacerbated by his continuation of Trump tariffs and expansion?

This is the take that seems the most reasonable to me.

There is a difference between a potentially non-ideal candidate (Hillary, Biden, Kamala) and what Trump is. Tbh, I feel exactly how I did about him when the republicans chose him as their candidate 8+ years ago or whatever. Things have gone in some ways worse than I would have guessed, and in some ways better. The country hasn't gone to complete ****, but OTOH, *both* parties have gotten worse imho. And it's increasingly difficult to even figure out wtf either actually represent. The waters are just so damn muddy:

Will the economy be better with R or D? I'm not very confident answering either way. EXCEPT, prominent democrats responsible for understanding Bitcoin (well, crypto on a fundamental level), don't. Do republican leaders understand it? I'm not sure but their basic platform makes much more sense for it.

Will marginalized communities do better under R or D? I still think D but I am much less confident than 8 years ago. The democratic party at least seems to have to own up to inhumane stuff whereas, with Trump as president, literally no one has to own up to treating anyone in any reasonable way - b/c he treats everyone like ****. Muny, Melk, me, loco, everyone is **** to him.

Identity stuff - this will sort itself out eventually in favor of letting people be who they want. It's just too much change too quickly. Massive amounts of people still are super uncomfortable and/or think gay people in general are literally pedophiles.

My life - well, it's very hard to sort through exactly how policies Trump and Biden were responsible for affected my life. First, I try to not follow the news b/c it's a dumpster fire. Second, even if I did, lol at any outlet (R biased or D biased) giving me enough information to feel confident that I actually understand the ramifications properly. If I had to bet with such massive uncertainty, I actually think I directly benefit/will benefit more from Trump. Still massively against that asshat. He certainly didn't try to make *my* life better, any of it is just completely random and/or b/c I'm super privileged.

I had to give up on the Muny/Melk debate although I followed somewhat closely at first. There is too much talking past each other (surprise, surprise). No offence but neither come out of it looking great. I sympathize with Melk more but half the time have no idea wtf he is actually trying to say with each infinite response.

My best guess as to how Trump won has to do with the people who get behind him *feeling* better about things while the people getting behind Kamala still *feel* like **** to some degree. Also, she ran too late, didn't even go through caucus, went hard at Trump (which I think was fine) without establishing herself first as a superior leader/human being. Anyway, I didn't even bother trying to figure out how good or bad she really is (same with Biden), it wasn't really necessary, almost anyone would be so far ahead of Trump for what I value in someone leading anything I'm a part of.

Ok, somehow feels better to rant.

Please note that the source said that 82% of women were biased against women and 90% of men were biased against women. (preferred to have a man/woman leading in the jobs described.)
If the poll reported on women only, would they say that 82% of women are sexist?

There is also another study that I was looking up because the underlying assumption that college educated = more intelligent seems to be no longer true!!?
Is this possible?!?

Well back in 1930's only 10% of the population had university degrees. The term University applies to any school that offers PhD and Md. degrees. Colleges offer BA and some Master's degrees but not higher.
In 1930 the average IQ of the university degree holder was 119.

Today in the 2020's 39% of the population have college degrees or higher, and as I said before that is not necessarily the top 39% of IQ attending college. Many women are there to get a Mrs. degree.
Today the average IQ of a college degree holder is a whopping 102!
https://www.realclearscience.com/blo...9_1006608.html
“College students once stood out from the pack on IQ tests. Today, they're about average. A recent meta-analysis found that undergraduates' IQs have steadily fallen from roughly 119 in 1939 to a mean of 102 in 2022, just slightly above the population average of 100.”

Now taking into account that stem degrees (more men than women take stem degrees) take higher IQ's to get into... where does that leave women talking liberal arts degrees on the IQ scale?
You have to go back and ask anyone taking that liberal arts degree, what is the purpose of your degree? Do you earn more over the next 20 years by getting the degree?
Were you there to party for 4 years and scope out potential husbands?
Not saying the IQ stuff is true. Just more to think about.

Got a new bowl of popcorn... chomp chomp.

I have provided several pieces of evidence. They all point one way. Have you found any articles, poorly written or otherwise that even suggest the opposite. Nope!


Of course that's not what the poll said. You really can't read, can you?


Yup, bears are just like us. They have the ability to contemplate ethical decisions and have access to modern agriculture techniques and food production. Fantastic stuff.


If you vote for a punch in the face instead of a kick in the balls, I guess you're a punch in the face supporter.

Cool story bro.


You really need to learn what words mean. Who the fack is going to know the motivations running through Orange Man's brain?
I found you some Republicans saying that was part of the motivation. You don't believe them, because of of course you don't. You only selectively believe the stuff you want to believe.


Now we don't know what an "opinion piece" is? Man, this is bad.


Ok, now do that with "Stock Market is up".

Like I said, facts are facts. This seems to really escape you. You seem to be very interested in why these Trump slappies didn't know facts. That doesn't matter. What matters is they didn't know them.

Anyway, if this is the case where is the survey that shows people when presented with Trumpy facts get the questions wrong and vote for Kamala. Why doesn't that exist? Same questions that show less educated people tend to vote Trump. Why doesn't that exist? What about data that shows that people who claim they don't follow the news closely tend to vote for Trump. Why does the opposite of that not exist? You never seem to answer these questions other that "I don't know". Maybe pause to think about it for a while and it will come to you. If all the data is pointing one way, it should tell you something. Well, it would tell a rational person something.

I know, I know. You're saying that these facts don't mean that these Trump slappies are less informed in general. Did you provide any data that showed Trump slappies were more informed about anything? No. Because finding facts is for middle school students, not "dealers in facts", like Rich Muny.
Man, I don't know what you think this proves. If someone's subjective evaluation of the nation's economy was that it was doing well and that they were doing better today than four years ago, that means they're "low info". Come on, man, even you're not stupid enough to realize those are general subjective evaluations and not the same as "stock market is up", " Inflation is down", ect.

Many women certainly have negative attitudes towards women in leadership. I'm not sure about the exact numbers, because of the nature of the questions asked. I don't doubt that it is high. Internalized sexism is a thing. College educated women seem to be likely to have these attitudes than less educated women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_sexism

You posted information, which I debunked. I don't have to find someone else's work because I posted my own.

It's ethical to eat what we are supposed to eat, just as the rest of nature does. You can make your own choices for yourself, but LOL at judging anyone else's ethics.

You'd vote for neither if you supported neither. Now you get it?

The facts are facts. The survey results regarding those facts, though, are very biased for the reasons I already explained.

Legacy media won't conduct polls like that, which isn't my problem. They apparently believe Trump supporters are misinformed, and that's why they surveyed what they surveyed. It's unbelievably biased, to the point where only you believe it's objective evidence of anything but the biases of the team who conducted it.

Then try to pay attention. It proves that a Kamala supporter who has no clue about the "facts" being asked is very likely to answer "true" to the true/false question based on their own biases. This can't be that hard for you to comprehend. Maybe take a moment to read before replying.

No, Melk, you didn't. You failed to make your case that Kamala supporters are more intelligent or more informed than Trump supporters.

Have you stopped to consider whether this is "discrimination"?

Like if I meet 10 people, and I can win a million dollars if I guess who refuses to use a toilet and free shits, I'm guessing a jeet 100% of a time because I can pass a freshman level math class.

The most ardent democratic groups are some of the least educated groups (which is correlated with intelligence). They're also black, which represents an overall lower IQ group.

I went from thinking that Kamala voters smarter on average to thinking Trump voters smarter on average reading all of this tbh.

In the tails it's not even close.

Which clearly means you must also be dumb dumb dumb

LOL at debunked. I don't want you to post someone else's "debunking". I want you to post actual facts. You know, the thing you deal in?

Look man, your argument is transparent and completely unfalsifiable. I find some research that shows that people who didn't know something tend to vote Trump. You then gin up some reason why that's an unfair question to ask Trump voters.

Oh wait, so we're not bears now. We can make ethical judgements. Which is it bears or not bears?


You realize you're contradicting yourself, right. Of course you don't. A few pages ago you said someone who didn't vote for either was more aligned with Trump because they knew Kamala's campaign needed their vote. So two days ago, if you didn't vote for either you were a quasi-Trump supporter. Now if you don't vote for either you don't support either. I wonder what it will be next week!


Holy fack. Real breakthrough here. Finally, we agree on something.


And as I've already explained you can just claim "bias" anytime you see a survey with results you don't like. This was on full display at your attempt to hand wave away the self-identified people who don't follow the news closely.

Rich Muny: Well, we don't know how many people that was. It could have been 3%
Melk: Dude we know exactly how many it was if you follow the link all the questions and numbers are there. It's 15%
Rich Muny: 15% lol, that's not enough
Melk: Um, OK, why
Rich Muny: Obviously 85% of people don't follow news closely
Melk: Survey didn't say that, but of course you don't know that because you didn't actually read it.

It's pretty clear. You have your mind made up. If new evidence is presented, you will reject it. You won't even actually read it. You'll just keep grasping at straws for some reason it can't be true, because you "know" (based on no evidence at all) that it isn't true.


So Fox News wouldn't do a poll like that to prove that point? Come on, man. If they had that data, Hannity would be going on about it non-stop.


I love how when it comes to things you want to "prove" your standard of proof is non-existent. How does it prove that? Why can't it be that they know the stock market is up and they know inflation down, therefore they think the economy is in good shape?

I'm serious. I really want to see how in Rich Muny's brain that data (from NBC News, which apparently you've been telling me is biased trash for days, but now seems to be a reliable source) proves what you think it does. Please. I have to hear this!

Just to see how far out there you are Rich, can you verify one thing for me:

You agree that less educated voters tend to vote Trump (but you think their are doing so because it is in their interest). Is that correct?

Legacy media and the left have been pushing a narrative that people are getting misinformed by "disinformation". They push this narrative pretty hard, against X and nontraditional media.

The survey you cited happens to align with that. It has many others issues too, which I cited for you.

You ask me for data on the other side, but conservatives are not out surveying people to show imaginary disinformation exists, nor are we trying to prove someone is smarter than someone else. The GOP welcomes working class people and many others who are traditionally conservative and anti-communist. Why would we insult people the way Democrats are? I actually saw a segment on ABC, where high school graduates were described as "uneducated". LOL. As I said before, nothing like elitism to win over the working class.

Please read my replies before replying. I said there's nothing unethical about eating meat, but you can make your own choices for how you live your own life. Which part of that confused you?

I said people who chose not to vote for Kamala knew she needed their vote to win, so it was a conscious choice not to vote for her. This can't be hard for you to understand. If it is hard, go look at how she did on Nov. 5th.

That's completely different than voting FOR a candidate like you did.

I explained its clear and obvious biases.

Exit polls showed that men with college degrees were equally likely to vote for Trump as for Kamala, men without college degrees were more likely to vote for Trump, and women in general were more likely to support Kamala.

OK, cool. So when we add up all of those subgroups, less educated people, as a group, tend to vote for Trump. Yes?

Absolutely yes, more people who are less educated voted for Trump.
'Educated' does not guarantee you have a high IQ or are smarter as I have outlined previously. So please don't interchange the phrase
'more educated people voted for Kamala' with 'smarter people voted for Kamala.'
Avg college educated person has a 102 IQ.
I would bet $1 that if you gave an IQ test to all 74.7Million Kamala voters and 77.1Million Trump voters and averaged each group separately,
you would get 100.0 IQ average for both groups. (difference being less than 0.1%)
It almost has to be this way because of the size of the population sampled and the IQ distribution curve.

What I would really like to see is if you did a poll of all Mensa society voters what the vote ratio would be .. IQ requirement to join Mensa is 130.

Yeah. Dunno how this is really a debate. But this is peak AIDS, so I probably shouldn't wonder.

TBH over the last 30y you prob end up with nearly identical breakdowns.

I think one of the more striking things is most people who vote R will just be like "Yeah, Trump does some very shitty and weird stuff." whereas you see some really convoluted mental gymnastics (undocumented people means documented and undocumented since we don't have more precise language to describe illegals we know and don't know) out of the left wing. Wait till you have one talk you through illegals and tax fraud/identity theft, hot but livable IQ levels.

If this whole convo was one giant aidsy logical fallacy, this might deserve a rebuttal, but actually pretty accurately describes one viewpoint.

I don't think it is that close, but certainly within the realm of reality. Educational attainment (not college students) tracks decently with IQ and its say to say that there is some reasonable amount of discrepancy, but we're quibbling about a few IQ points on our arbitrary scale. Regardless of how you slice this any reasonable estimate is gonna prob average 1.3-1.7 SDs off baseline from the average poster here. (Median is a lot stronger, but N1 killing us.)

As someone in that latter group and knowing a bunch of people also in that group (none of which actually have membership tho), I'd so most people aren't really accurately described by a R/D split in America. For example, I think we should erase Obongocare, undergo massive tort reform, solve the bizarre doctor/insurance fraud issue and unify all the various fed programs into providing a baseline of emergency services and healthcare for all people (including the unemployed) and also stop the excess utilization of resources on end of life care, which is decidedly not a view held by pretty much anyone in the political sphere of the US.

Next we can cover housing first and how we need to bring back 150sqft shared bathroom accommodations for poor people.

You can say non-college educated men were far more likely to vote for Trump than for Kamala and college educated women were far more likely to vote for Kamala than for Trump. You can also say non-college educated women were more likely to vote for Kamala, but not to the extent of college educated women. And, you can say college educated men were evenly split between the two.

If you just said that in the first place, no one would have replied with an objection to that claim.

Obviously it's not a "guarantee" but there is definitely data to show that education and intelligence are positively correlated. Here's one study which shows this. It's easy to find others.


https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6088505/

You can also correlate intelligence with educational attainment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intell..._and_education

100% agree with all those reports.
What I was trying to say with my 102 IQ report was that if you did an IQ test on any large group of college graduates, 50% will have
102 IQ or over and 50% will have under 102. If we assume that there are say 10% in the 120 IQ, and there is a minimum IQ of say 90 to get into college,
there must be a lot of 102-90 IQ people with College degrees.
Something like this. (apologies in advance for my crude sketch)
Now the majority of those to the right of the 102 line didn't get high paying jobs after
getting their degree and vote D because those with lots of debt vote D hoping for college debt forgiveness.
Not an official study, but my guess of why majority of female college grads vote D.