Newsom vs Deathsantis shadow debate; Thursday, Nov 30th

[Bleed The Freak]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/12/anti-chaos-candidate-ron-desantiss-dumpster-fire-campaign.html

 

[Bleed The Freak]

Would rather have Andy from Kentucky or Whitmer for 28 than Newsom.

My guess is Andy makes a Senate Run.

 

[Kyle C. Barker]

Would rather have Andy from Kentucky or Whitmer for 28 than Newsom.

My guess is Andy makes a Senate Run.

Andy is interesting. I think he could do really well with more exposure.

What's interesting is that newsom used Andy's abortion debate tactic on desantis in the debate.
That's said, out of newsome, Andy, and whitmer I prefer whitmer the most

 

[Worthless Loser]

For 2028:

1a)Whitmer
1b)Shapiro (Governor of PA)
2)Andy Beshear

Shapiro has been doing a good job in PA and has the same midwestern appeal that Big Gretch has. He actually has an advantage over her because he's a male.

Both of them on a Presidential ticket together.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Would rather have Andy from Kentucky or Whitmer for 28 than Newsom.

My guess is Andy makes a Senate Run.

Andy doesn’t appear to me to have that edge. He seems tailor made for KY.

Whitmer and Pritzker are solid IMO. even Shapiro. I like Newsom but I know he’s controversial.

My problem with Pritzker is the left wing of the party its full of anticapitalist weirdos and they’d piss themselves if they had to vote for him.

 

[the cac mamba]

Gavin should easily trounce them…..cuz who republicans gonna run in 2028 against Newsome? Christie?

the GOP '28 primary is interesting

desantis and haley will be the only ones left from this year. that fakkit ted cruz will be in there for sure. youngkin. rick scott wants it. rubio might get back to embarrassing himself

 

[BigMoneyGrip]

the GOP '28 primary is interesting

desantis and haley will be the only ones left from this year. that fakkit ted cruz will be in there for sure. youngkin. rick scott wants it.

Youngkin is done out here… He lost the state legislature lmaoo

 

[the cac mamba]

For 2028:

1a)Whitmer
1b)Shapiro (Governor of PA)
2)Andy Beshear

Shapiro has been doing a good job in PA and has the same midwestern appeal that Big Gretch has. He actually has an advantage over her because he's a male.

Both of them on a Presidential ticket together.

shapiro/whitmer or newsom/whitmer is a monster ticket in 2028. assuming he has a good 4 years, i'd vote shapiro over newsom in the '28 primary

'24 is newsom's real shot. you know he's dying for biden to have to step down

 

[Bleed The Freak]

Youngkin is done out here… He lost the state legislature lmaoo

Good riddance

 

[Bleed The Freak]

In a sane world you would have the Adam Kinzinger's of the world be the GOP standard bearers but that ship long sailed.

If you had told me in 2023 I'd be a fan of (more like thanking her) Liz Cheney I'd have never believe you

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Rhakim



Like I said…the science minded among us dont have time for activists to figure out reality…








@voiture @Creflo ½ Dollar @invalid @Pressure @wire28 @ADevilYouKhow @88m3 @MeachTheMonster @Wargames @Tair @the cac mamba

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I have no idea why you quote random people's social media as if posting on it makes them some expert on environmental issues and therefore makes up for your inability to articulate your position or mount any defense against criticisms of it.

She's not an environmentalist. She's never worked in any field remotely related to environmentalism. Her field of study isn't even tangentially related to it, nor does it appear to be any meaningful hobby of hers. I did a search and can find no evidence that she's ever engaged in environmentalism or conservation in any meaningful way other than proclaiming her poorly informed opinions on social media. And in fact, she's trying to make a name as a pro-capitalism crusader, even though she has zero background in that sphere either, and thus molds all her environmental opinions to fit her pro-capitalism agenda.

Her responses in the 1st, 5th, and 6th tweet suggest she lacks basic environmental awareness AND basic political awareness, and is merely repeating shyt she heard online somewhere. You're posting her tweets solely because she's an internet personality who agrees with you, not because she had the slightest evidence, reasoning, or actual authority behind her position.

I'm not the first to notice this about her in particular:

onetimeuse92304 71 days ago | parent | next [–]

I think scientists (and actually people of other trades) are best when they talk about stuff they actually know. Sometimes people start thinking that because they got successful in one area it gives them blanket check to talk about everything. Usually, the end result is they greatly overestimate their capability.

This is how many youtube channels die. The authors think they exhausted the topic and are looking to talk about other stuff and they start alienating their fan base because not only they are much less knowledgeable about those other topics, but also because the fan base just did not expect/appreciate those other topics. They came here because they liked the original videos and now the channel became something else which is unlikely to be what they wanted.f

As for Sabine, I watched some of her videos on quantum physics and they were very interesting. Then I stumbled on one or two newer videos on other topics she started adding later and they were jarring, on the verge of misinformation/pseudoscience.

omanic 71 days ago | parent | prev | next [–]

Many here see only problems with her technical videos, but what I find is that after initially talking about and criticising research in her areas of expertise it is very obvious she became popular with a certain "anti-scientific establishment" (for lack of a better word) crowd and now really peddles to that audience. In the process she has diverted from topics she knows to scientific areas where she has at best a undergraduate level understanding but still talks like she is a subject expert and always taking a contrarian stance.

After seeing videos where I have significant expertise where she was clearly wrong (and again peddling the "anti-establishment" angle) I stopped watching. That she is now making videos about capitalism and other social science topics just illustrates the point.

vegetablepotpie 71 days ago | root | parent | next [–]

I agree that she absolutely is fostering an “anti-establishment” audience, she’s also doing it in a lackadaisical way and that’s harmful. A good example of this was on her video on free will, she made the argument that free will does not exist because human brains operate on principles that are deterministic. She followed that conclusion with a tirade on climate change and how people should stop trying to build the “political will” to do something on climate change, because free will does not exist.

I have to wonder what the reasoning behind including that in a video was. It absolutely alienates anyone working on building coalitions for climate solutions, and she didn’t even need to bring up the topic to make her point. You could say that she could be making that point to curry some favor with people who do not believe in climate change and would like to see content by a scientist, with credentials, indicating skepticism. However, she has videos that talk about the drivers behind climate change in detail that are in line with the scientific consensus on the issue.

It makes zero sense to me from a messaging stand point why she takes contrarian views on social issues. I can appreciate the scientists who stay out of the limelight because, while many are smart, not all are “media trained” and are wise enough to know it. Scientists who drift into fame, but are not equipped to navigate it, are controlled by the whims of the public they serve.

jjoonathan 71 days ago | parent | prev | next [–]

The criticism of her most recent video "Capitalism is good, let me explain" [1] is surprisingly concrete and substantive for a subject that usually degrades into a vitriolic dunk-fest within seconds. In particular, the popular reply videos [2] and [3] raise the criticism that: * She opens with the "money emerged to fix barter" origin story, which fell out of favor a while ago [2]

* The focus on money as opposed to credit and ownership isn't just ahistorical, it avoids the core of what is usually meant by "capitalism" [2]
* She handwaives the problems of the industrial revolutions and the capitalism critic by saying "that's another story." Is it? [2]
* She botched the Penicillin example [3]
* Her discussion on externalities absentmindedly missed the problems with positive externalities [2]
* She attributes successes to markets and failures to regulation without justifying why [2] ... and more.

Regardless of what you think about the underlying debate or whether you agree with these points, it seems pretty clear to me that they are substantive. Not only that, a few of them pretty clearly seem to be the result of an expert leaving their lane and speaking authoritatively on a subject they don't have deep knowledge of. Do you disagree?

[1] SH Video:
[2] Reply 1:
[3] Reply 2:

Of course, those are just the opinions of random people on the internet....but that's all she is either, and their opinions are backed by much better evidence and reason than hers are.

 

[Cuban Pete]

Im sorry what.. what was the point of this?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Im sorry what.. what was the point of this?

Desantis is losing hope and needed some publicity.

Newsom is trying to position himself as the Democrats' savior if Biden gets ill or lost between now and the DNC. As well as become the early frontrunner for 2028 if that doesn't happen.

 

[BigMoneyGrip]

Desantis is losing hope and needed some publicity.

Newsom is trying to position himself as the Democrats' savior if Biden gets ill or lost between now and the DNC. As well as become the early frontrunner for 2028 if that doesn't happen.

Newsome already said he ain’t looking for nor will be the nominee for 2024. So stop with the clown rethoric..