KorbenDallas

Members
  • Posts

    1,441
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

KorbenDallas last won the day on March 31 2019

KorbenDallas had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About KorbenDallas

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    John Mackey
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    North Florida
  • Interests
    Objectivism

Recent Profile Visitors

4,031 profile views

KorbenDallas's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Week One Done Rare
  • One Month Later Rare

Recent Badges

85

Reputation

  1. All Polls are Wrong.....? "Republicans by double-digit margins said they are willing to ditch their party to follow former President Donald Trump if he breaks out on his own, according to a new poll released Sunday. Members of the GOP by 46 percent to 27 percent said they would put the Republican Party in the rear-view mirror if Trump creates his own, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll found." Source: https://nypost.com/2021/02/21/republicans-willing-to-break-from-party-to-follow-trump-poll/
  2. Reading some of this thread over Thanksgiving, an interesting mention about the Stockdale Paradox has lead to some thoughts. The main idea of the paradox is, "you need to balance realism with optimism" according to this article about it. This reminds me of Rand's Razor in the cognitive/emotional realm, from an excerpt in ITOE, "The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity." The latter part that they are not to be integrated in disregard of necessity seems poignant at this stage of the 2020 election. Here is something that Laura Ingraham recently said to illustrate the point of the Stockdale Paradox and Rand's Razor, she recently said this on her show according to the USA Today: “Unless the legal situation changes in a dramatic and frankly an unlikely manner, Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20th," she said on "The Ingraham Angle." Despite what she called "unpleasant" and "disappointing" election results, Ingraham told her viewers that "as much as we wish things were different, this is where things stand tonight." "To say this constitutes living in reality," Ingraham said. "If I offered you a false reality – if I told you there was an excellent, phenomenal chance that the Supreme Court was going to step in and deliver a victory to President Trump – I'd be lying to you." So Laura Ingram, a staunch Trump supporter, practiced the Stockdale Paradox and Rand's Razor by balancing optimism with reality in accordance with necessity: as new context came in regarding the 2020 election legal challenges she came to the conclusion that it was time to abandon optimism and the recognize the reality that Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20th. And something Laura said especially stood out to me, by replacing "Ingraham said" with "Ayn Rand said" in some of the text of the article, we come up with an interesting exercise: "To say this constitutes living in reality," Ingraham said Ayn Rand said. "If I offered you a false reality – if I told you there was an excellent, phenomenal chance that the Supreme Court was going to step in and deliver a victory to President Trump – I'd be lying to you."
  3. Pfizer said today their vaccine is 90% effective against coronavirus--making the announcement a week AFTER the election. Typically what happens is companies receive information like this then choose when to release the information to the public, so what is the possibility that Pfizer knew they had a 90% effective vaccine before the election? I'd say those chances are very high. I haven't dug deeper, but if this is true, if they had announced the vaccine news before the election, it would have been a game-changer and Trump would have had no problem getting elected again. I'm not one for conspiracies anymore, but Pfizer releasing this information the Monday after the election looks very suspicious to me.
  4. I hope so!!!! She can't get work done, too much ideological stonewalling.
  5. Na it's been grey, I've been going back and forth between Foxnews and CNN maps, CNN has only had AZ grey
  6. That's a false alternative, either earning faith or not. What Trump did earn from me in the last election is respect in how he won, going for the rust belt flipping WI and MI, and I especially do not want a democrat in office. But doesn't have to do with doubt in Trump or lack of faith to say that he is in a bad position in the electoral map at the moment I type this, winning AZ is his only real path to victory--and that path currently has about 550k+ of mail-in votes uncounted and 2/3 of those are in Maricopa County, a democrat county where mail-in votes have been decidedly trending democrat across the entire US. I went to bed last night thinking Trump would win 2020, and as it stands right now the election is coming down to AZ, with a focus on Maricopa County. Like I said in my earlier post, the Trump campaign is optimistic that the mail-in ballots in AZ are majority republican, and there are a lot of votes left to count.
  7. Well I just read this article: "Trump 2024: If President Loses, Most Republicans Back Another Shot—Poll" https://www.newsweek.com/trump-2024-president-loses-republicans-run-again-poll-1544786 Two key takeaways from the article, 1) If Trump loses he can run in 2024 and 2) Bannon was quoted in the article saying if Trump loses in 2020 he fully expects him to run in 2024. As I type this, it isn't looking good for Trump. If he holds GA, NC, PA then he'll need Nevada or Arizona; Arizona a state that the Trump folks are predicting a 30k vote win once all votes have been counted. I have my doubts because Arizona is expecting about 550k+ votes to come in and many of them are in Maricopa County, which is a dem county. The Trump folks say over 50% of those votes coming in are from registered republicans. At this point, who knows? But one important thing that came to mind is how Trump fundamentally changed the GOP, and it will be changed for years to come. Before I read the article I thought it would be strange to see Pence trying to run on Trump's platform. Trump coming back in 2024, a mad, angry, determined, loud, Trump version 2.0 would create more of a scene than he did in 2016. And to be honest, I'm not sure if I'd want to see that. But there are currently still a lot of votes to be counted.
  8. Boris Johnson contracted COVID-19, went to the hospital, and recovered. Though I believe when Boris went his symptoms were worse than Trump's. I believe Trump will be fine, high recovery rate especially when caught early, and access to the best medical professionals and treatments available to him. My first thought when I read the news was, "Wow, the left is really going to like this." I don't wish anything on the president, but the news will be in a frenzy for while. Considering if he recovers before the election, I have doubts how much it will influence the outcome. Most people already know who they are voting for, and the ones that don't can make a case either way: a) Trump contracted COVID-19 because he has been careless in his attitude toward it from the beginning or b) Trump beat COVID-19, and so can America.
  9. Professor with history of correctly predicting elections forecasts that Biden will defeat Trump https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/510754-professor-with-history-of-correctly-predicting-elections-forecasts-that American University professor Allan Lichtman, who has a record of accurately predicting presidential races, said he expects former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, to defeat President Trump in November. Lichtman was one of the few forecasters who predicted the Trump's election in 2016. Over decades of observing presidential politics, he has developed a system of 13 “key factors” to help determine whether the party in the White House will maintain its hold. The factors range from whether the party has an incumbent president running to short- and long-term economic conditions. “The keys predict that Trump will lose the White House,” the professor said in a video op-ed published by The New York Times on Wednesday. Lichtman claims to have accurately predicted the winner of every presidential election since 1984, though he predicted that former Vice President Al Gore would win the election in 2000. Although Gore won the popular vote, former President George W. Bush won the electoral college. [...] ____________________ I find his system to be interesting, he doesn't specifically make judgments about the candidates, except for a subjective "charisma" metric, so his system mostly disregards who the actual candidates are and instead focuses on other things. Despite the fact that he has a near flawless track record of predicting the eventual presidential election winner since 1984, I disagree that Trump will lose in 2020. I'm not a fan of Trump but I think he will win in 2020. Economic health is a big factor, and despite perhaps a slow start to a coronavirus response, the economy is doing well during the pandemic and Trump did eventually find his footing in his coronavirus response. Pushing for the governors to re-open when he did was the right call, despite the media backlash the economy did begin to recover once that set things in motion. If there was any question about that, Trump can just hold up a stock market chart showing the V-shaped recovery it made that correlates to his efforts. Professor Lichtman has been seen in previous videos hating the fact that Trump won in 2016, even though he predicted it would happen. Some of his keys require his judgment, and perhaps this time around he is letting his biases color his prediction--although I think for Trump to win in 2020, it would take some electoral college kung-fu like last time.
  10. This video isn't a deepfake video, why are you asking about this video? The twitter video posted earlier in this thread is the one I was talking about. Duh level? I looked for the original video and I couldn't find it, if it's out there then more power to whoever can dig it up---and golly, maybe that's why nobody has posted the original, who woulda thunkit? But what is your position about the twitter video? It's not a deepfake? Is it altered? Does it have artifacts make her appear strange? I'm asking because you compared the twitter video to a video from her youtube channel but there are differences between the two. It doesn't matter to me if the twitter video is a deepfake or not, and it doesn't matter to me if she has had plastic surgery or not. She looks different from a year ago so it looks like she has had some work done, but she doesn't look like catlady (look it up). It doesn't make her unfit for a potential VP nod, so I'm not sure what the issue is. That's not support for her or Biden for candidates; Biden's memory problems are an issue, but Harris's appearance isn't, is it?
  11. Ran across this article today on The Atlantic, A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked For decades, a landmark brain study fed speculation about whether we control our own actions. It seems to have made a classic mistake. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/ The death of free will began with thousands of finger taps. In 1964, two German scientists monitored the electrical activity of a dozen people’s brains. Each day for several months, volunteers came into the scientists’ lab at the University of Freiburg to get wires fixed to their scalp from a showerhead-like contraption overhead. The participants sat in a chair, tucked neatly in a metal tollbooth, with only one task: to flex a finger on their right hand at whatever irregular intervals pleased them, over and over, up to 500 times a visit. The purpose of this experiment was to search for signals in the participants’ brains that preceded each finger tap. At the time, researchers knew how to measure brain activity that occurred in response to events out in the world—when a person hears a song, for instance, or looks at a photograph—but no one had figured out how to isolate the signs of someone’s brain actually initiating an action. [...] __________________ TLDR, it seems the analysis of the original experiment was incorrect, and that is what the article means what was debunked. An interesting read, and encouraging for free-will and volitionists.
  12. In the serial killer example, Harris cites prior causes being determinates, "these events precede any conscious decision to act," but because they exist in the serial killers past doesn't mean they caused it. Of course there are plenty of plenty of people that have similar backgrounds but haven't murdered, Sam Harris is identifying conditions in the serial killer's past that could have influenced his act, but they are conditions, not necessary and sufficient conditions, so they exist but they aren't necessarily causal.