It was not obvious to his voters.
1,835 karma · joined March 29, 2017
Most of it had no bearing on my point in the first place, but your claim that voters "didn't actually care" was refuted and you haven't offered a credible reason to believe it.
> It was obvious to many
Not to Trump's voters.
I put it to you that the conservative opposition and bigots are very uncharitable at the outset, in interpretation of messaging from the other side. In this case they didn't have to do any work, it was literally said for them.
Don't forget that working people and moderates are the ones you need to convince. If people didn't change their votes, election outcomes would always be the same. Educated people tend to be more committed to a worldview (and overconfident), whether left or right. They are listening when you mock egg prices.
It wasn't obvious to the voters. And at the risk of repeating myself, calling people stupid is not effective.
> it's hard to see how you interpreted it that way.
Try in good faith.
> Literally no one is saying that.
"but egg prices!!!". They might as well be.
Notwithstanding that Biden was punished for inflationary spending, all Trump had to do was lean on the perception that people "had it better" in his term. You don't need to lower prices if your wages go up, and notwithstanding that this lags, the perception has been that wages have not kept up. Obviously the intuition was that electing Trump would lead to better outcomes, not some nefarious hidden motivation behind every voter.
> So all the complaints about high prices was just for show since they don't actually care.
That is not what it shows. All it telegraphs is that expectations are distorted. The polls were clear that inflation was the #1 motivating factor.
Black, hispanic, and Asian voters all shifted right. Harris did ok with whites. Is that because those voters do not care about prices? Is that because you think those people of color are stupid? Be serious.
We care about CVD because of mortality, and if mortality rate is terrible then it's a moot point.
> people living past 100 was far from uncommon
"uncommon" is not a number. The most we can infer from the data is that life was exceedingly harsh and short on average. Even if we believe it was 70 years old, that's still worse.
Vehicle deaths are also avoidable.
For one we could stop subsidizing suspect products (e.g. HFCS) and create other incentives.
Possibly it's just too potent for legalization to be viable.
You could go the way of East Asia. That would be very difficult, but easy access to narcotics could lead to disastrous results.
Choice and opportunity-cost is all "self-limiting", the only difference is perspective. It's better to have an additive-mindset, i.e. replace a habit with another that provides value rather than merely focusing on restricting something. This works for everything, including diet. In the words of Allan Carr, if you view your actions as sacrifice, you won't succeed.
Part of me was hoping it would be something more visionary, but maybe it's just not the right time. I noticed that competition is similarly betting on handheld devices.
- NextDNS with device rules/filtering (primarily for adult and malicious content). This also has monitoring capability, don't think I'll use it though.
- Social media restriction in the early years, but eventually allow access through a notebook. This is a more useful creative tool and will mediate passive consumption, as they won't carry it everywhere with them. Instead it's a log-in at home, when time permits.
- I can't imagine a scenario where my kids "need" a phone, but if so, dumbphones are an option
Some parents I guess will opt for overscheduling kids as an offset, but I think unstructured time is important. Just so long as it's not entirely spent on media consumption.
Mostly, right now I should be setting by example. In instances where kids are playing alone and I don't have to be hovering over them, I'm avoiding excessively reaching for the phone and instead pick up a book. Or do nothing.
I think it's a farce to suggest that no one out there could be accurately described by it (identity politics being more important than class, language policing, etc)
If it's banal, I'd like to know. Otherwise you're still left wondering whether it's anything that hinders you in the longrun.