Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 500969 times)

katsiki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Age: 40
  • Location: La.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7100 on: January 16, 2021, 08:12:37 PM »
Coast to coast.    Were they actually serious?   I always thought it was a joke, like the old national enquirer only not so serious.


I am pretty sure they are serious...  it is fun to listen to for a few minutes but it makes you wonder about your fellow man... :)

Alfred J Quack

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Location: Netherlands
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7101 on: January 17, 2021, 02:19:14 AM »
A great disappointment of the internet has been the gap between what was possible and what has happened. Around 2000, there was much excitement about what internet access could do. Imagine a world in which people, regardless of rural or urban, had most of the knowledge of the world at easy access. The thinking was that it would help lead to a much better informed democracy, a more enlightened electorate, and good for the country (and the world). It is true that there have been massive benefits to the internet. However, the role of information connectedness has played out very differently than projected. The internet also allowed people to find communities that shared their beliefs and stovepipe and narrow their information sources. The threshold for reliable information distribution was evaporated as anyone with a webpage or blog had the same access as sources with editorial review and fact checking. Local newspapers disappeared and isolated fringe ideas became groups and metastasized.

So yes, a 30 second search could verify if a photo was a Russian lithium mine or not (which is pretty remarkable, really). But the problem is that people have cognitive biases to selectively reinforce community held ideas. It takes actual effort in both practical terms and psychological terms to be willing to try and prove yourself wrong or be open minded in moments of new information to question it.

I certainly agree with everything that you said, but I have to wonder why this effect seems so much more pronounced in the USA vs. other countries. Is is the lack of critical thinking skills taught to children in our schools? Or maybe people confounding freedom of speech with a freedom to choose what the facts are? I am curious to hear what other think on this subject.
I'm not sure about the size of the movements but in my country (Netherlands) there's a big following for the anti-5G movement, a bit less for the Qanon movement but a very large following for the Coronavirus-hoax movement. It's worrying to see that the followers of one movement are often also followers of the others. Seems like if you're going down the rabbithole you'd best go all the way.

And yes, the internet in the 2000's was very interesting in ways of finding information that became available but the downside is that it's contrary is just as easy. How easy is it to find that that diamond mine is not a lithium mine? When you don't trust Google (because they want to deploy 5G), Microsoft's Bing (Bill Gates wants to chip you) and the only alternative is a search engine that keys your search profile to the sites you visit most often?

The difficulty is that both credible and non-credible sources get the same amount of attention and availability. Don't trust the government? Here's my interpretation independent research. Critical thinking only works when you verify your conclusions. Most people I know think they are critical thinkers but when a vague website spouts that Dr. Xavier posted about mind powers, they think they can trust that Dr. That said Dr. is one in social studies rather than an MD is beside the point.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2347
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7102 on: January 17, 2021, 04:43:03 AM »

Very well put.

I recently saw an individual in a local facebook group going on about how the COVID vaccine "changes your DNA which was given by GOD"
What do they think the virus does?

Or is the virus God send and they should embrace it and get infected as far as possible, and if they die, GLORY! it is God's will?

I certainly agree with everything that you said, but I have to wonder why this effect seems so much more pronounced in the USA vs. other countries. Is is the lack of critical thinking skills taught to children in our schools? Or maybe people confounding freedom of speech with a freedom to choose what the facts are? I am curious to hear what other think on this subject.
For centuries the US has been the main target of immigration for people who are A) extremely religious or B) rebellious (or both).
Since "spirituality" is genetic, it means you have a trait extreme in the "I strongly believe this to be truth, and if you say something else, you are the devil!" area.
 
It's a fun fact of live that the hard resistance to Evolution is actually a proof of it.

But yes, we have that too in Germany (like "the virus is fake"). And they even tried to storm the government! But nobody was killed, so you didn't hear about it I guess. Too bad we don't have that many guns here ;)


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14207
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7103 on: January 17, 2021, 04:47:57 AM »
Spirituality is genetic?  Got anything to back up that premise?

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6153
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7104 on: January 17, 2021, 05:07:02 AM »
Spirituality is genetic?  Got anything to back up that premise?
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14207
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7105 on: January 17, 2021, 05:43:58 AM »
Spirituality is genetic?  Got anything to back up that premise?
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Interesting.  I was unaware.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1435
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7106 on: January 17, 2021, 07:01:46 AM »
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

Trump's approval rating post January 6th is 33-38%. 
This means of an approximate vote of 50% to 50% that some (12-18%) people who voted for Trump do not think he us the Messiah against Commies/Reds/socialists etc.

Painting all Republicans with the same brush (binary thinking as noted above), leads to circling the wagons around Trump.

12-18% of people who may be reachable might not sound like much, but would form, with the 50% proven against Trump, a significant majority.

Even the Republican Party is a superset of regular Republicans and Trumpers.  Not all Republicans are Trumpers, but most? all? Trumpers are Republicans.

I would suggest the phraseology of "Republicans" as distinguishable from "tRUMP-lickers".

Total voter turnout in the US in 2020 was around 67 %. I'm not sure if that includes those who tried to vote but got their vote cancelled due to signatures and similar shenanigans. As far as I can see, the approval rating is based on all inhabitants, not just the ones who vote. So the difference between election outcome and approval could also be caused by a larger portion of the non voters disliking the president. Since voter suppression is real, and disproportionally affects those who are likely to dislike Trump, it would make sense that more of those who don't or can't vote would disapprove of the president.

But sure, a portion of those who voted for Trump probably held their nose but went through with it because of abortion, socialism, or other single causes.

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2916
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7107 on: January 17, 2021, 07:06:32 AM »
Spirituality is genetic?  Got anything to back up that premise?
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Mom and I were just reminiscing last night about Grandma being a conspiracy theorist back in the day and how my brother must have come by it naturally. Who knew there might be some truth to it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14207
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7108 on: January 17, 2021, 07:13:35 AM »
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

Trump's approval rating post January 6th is 33-38%. 
This means of an approximate vote of 50% to 50% that some (12-18%) people who voted for Trump do not think he us the Messiah against Commies/Reds/socialists etc.

Painting all Republicans with the same brush (binary thinking as noted above), leads to circling the wagons around Trump.

12-18% of people who may be reachable might not sound like much, but would form, with the 50% proven against Trump, a significant majority.

Even the Republican Party is a superset of regular Republicans and Trumpers.  Not all Republicans are Trumpers, but most? all? Trumpers are Republicans.

I would suggest the phraseology of "Republicans" as distinguishable from "tRUMP-lickers".

Total voter turnout in the US in 2020 was around 67 %. I'm not sure if that includes those who tried to vote but got their vote cancelled due to signatures and similar shenanigans. As far as I can see, the approval rating is based on all inhabitants, not just the ones who vote. So the difference between election outcome and approval could also be caused by a larger portion of the non voters disliking the president. Since voter suppression is real, and disproportionally affects those who are likely to dislike Trump, it would make sense that more of those who don't or can't vote would disapprove of the president.

But sure, a portion of those who voted for Trump probably held their nose but went through with it because of abortion, socialism, or other single causes.

A vote for Trump in 2016 could  be explained away as simply "not knowing what kind of President Trump would be".  But in 2020 voters have no such excuses. Those 74MM who voted for Trump chose to support him because of the previous four years. They decided Trump was their best option, which is remarkable given the centrist and well known Biden.

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2916
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7109 on: January 17, 2021, 07:40:13 AM »
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

Trump's approval rating post January 6th is 33-38%. 
This means of an approximate vote of 50% to 50% that some (12-18%) people who voted for Trump do not think he us the Messiah against Commies/Reds/socialists etc.

Painting all Republicans with the same brush (binary thinking as noted above), leads to circling the wagons around Trump.

12-18% of people who may be reachable might not sound like much, but would form, with the 50% proven against Trump, a significant majority.

Even the Republican Party is a superset of regular Republicans and Trumpers.  Not all Republicans are Trumpers, but most? all? Trumpers are Republicans.

I would suggest the phraseology of "Republicans" as distinguishable from "tRUMP-lickers".

Total voter turnout in the US in 2020 was around 67 %. I'm not sure if that includes those who tried to vote but got their vote cancelled due to signatures and similar shenanigans. As far as I can see, the approval rating is based on all inhabitants, not just the ones who vote. So the difference between election outcome and approval could also be caused by a larger portion of the non voters disliking the president. Since voter suppression is real, and disproportionally affects those who are likely to dislike Trump, it would make sense that more of those who don't or can't vote would disapprove of the president.

But sure, a portion of those who voted for Trump probably held their nose but went through with it because of abortion, socialism, or other single causes.

A vote for Trump in 2016 could  be explained away as simply "not knowing what kind of President Trump would be".  But in 2020 voters have no such excuses. Those 74MM who voted for Trump chose to support him because of the previous four years. They decided Trump was their best option, which is remarkable given the centrist and well known Biden.

China Joe has dementia, dontcha know...

They same assholes who were sharing crass racist shit about Obama for 8 years have already started sharing crass ageist and ableist shit about Biden.  Says a lot about them that they just can't even listen to this guy who isn't screaming a word salad at them...

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3095
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7110 on: January 17, 2021, 09:14:26 AM »
I did not know this! I am surprised the news didn't blast this across the papers!

Trump’s creation of a “Space Force,” which he appears to believe was a major accomplishment, was merely a bureaucratic renaming of the Air Force’s Space Command, which had existed since the Reagan presidency, with no change in mission or staffing.

From: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-legacy-impeachment-insurrection-lies-corruption_n_6001ff22c5b6efae62f88bd4

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2916
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7111 on: January 17, 2021, 09:21:51 AM »
I did not know this! I am surprised the news didn't blast this across the papers!

Trump’s creation of a “Space Force,” which he appears to believe was a major accomplishment, was merely a bureaucratic renaming of the Air Force’s Space Command, which had existed since the Reagan presidency, with no change in mission or staffing.

From: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-legacy-impeachment-insurrection-lies-corruption_n_6001ff22c5b6efae62f88bd4

Of all the outrages, Trump taking credit for a rebranding just doesn't even register. There has been some pushback at this racist attempting to co-opt the star trek logo.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14207
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7112 on: January 17, 2021, 09:54:48 AM »
I did not know this! I am surprised the news didn't blast this across the papers!

Trump’s creation of a “Space Force,” which he appears to believe was a major accomplishment, was merely a bureaucratic renaming of the Air Force’s Space Command, which had existed since the Reagan presidency, with no change in mission or staffing.

From: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-legacy-impeachment-insurrection-lies-corruption_n_6001ff22c5b6efae62f88bd4

This is old news to me.  When Trump announced 'Space Force', there were two major criticism: the first was general mockery (and a NetFlix series), but the second was basically "the Air Force already does all of this". The majority of what Space Force does involves low earth orbit (LEO) satellites - tracking and deploying. That's exactly what the Air Force has been doing since the 1970s.

Doesn't mean seperating it out into its own branch is a bad idea, per se - but the creation of Space Force hasn't changed our capabilities above the stratosphere in any meaningful way.

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3095
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7113 on: January 17, 2021, 10:59:36 AM »
Does this mean Donnie might have to get on Obamacare? He was only employed 4 years as president.

All former presidents and their families have access to treatment at military hospitals and government healthcare, but there’s a caveat: only the federal employees who worked for the government for at least five years are eligible for this perk. Of course, they have the option to discontinue government healthcare in favor of private insurance, but who on earth would want that?

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2347
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7114 on: January 17, 2021, 11:08:26 AM »
The president isn't an employee, for good or worse.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7115 on: January 17, 2021, 11:10:35 AM »
Does this mean Donnie might have to get on Obamacare? He was only employed 4 years as president.

All former presidents and their families have access to treatment at military hospitals and government healthcare, but there’s a caveat: only the federal employees who worked for the government for at least five years are eligible for this perk. Of course, they have the option to discontinue government healthcare in favor of private insurance, but who on earth would want that?

Jimmy Carter also doesn't have the health insurance perk.

Alfred J Quack

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Location: Netherlands
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7116 on: January 17, 2021, 11:17:23 AM »
Does this mean Donnie might have to get on Obamacare? He was only employed 4 years as president.

All former presidents and their families have access to treatment at military hospitals and government healthcare, but there’s a caveat: only the federal employees who worked for the government for at least five years are eligible for this perk. Of course, they have the option to discontinue government healthcare in favor of private insurance, but who on earth would want that?

Well, some people on the net are saying that US private healthcare is the best of the world. That is, until they had major surgery or something that caused a killer bill.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4518
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7117 on: January 17, 2021, 11:23:55 AM »

Was scrolling across the AM band last night. I like to see how far away I can hear radio.

The dial was very full of broadcasts. Almost every click of the tuning knob delivered another station. In addition to sports, a little music, there was 15+ radio stations simultaneously broadcasting conservative talk. Listened to several for 5-10 minutes. The quality of information they were sharing was so poor and inaccurate it was laughable. Honestly - dangerous considering what we saw at the Capitol.


Ha ha! You found Coast to Coast!  It's been around for like 40 years in some fashion.

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/

GOOD! Then not a sign of our imminent demise. ;)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14207
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7118 on: January 17, 2021, 11:32:13 AM »
A US President is entitled to a pension of $219,000 per year, and begins immediately after the president leaves office.

From a logistical standpoint, this is one of the reasons why conviction in the Senate would have consequences: DJT would lose that pension. Suppose Trump lives another decade or so (age 85) - that’s $2.5MM we’ll be paying him*  Granted that’s a rounding-error when it comes to the overall payroll of the federal government, but if one believes the president committed impeachable offense(s), there’s a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to convict.

*Carter has gotten the most pension $ in absolute terms, as he has been collecting for a record 41 years.

Pizzabrewer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7119 on: January 17, 2021, 12:36:19 PM »
Not an outrage, but I find it hilarious that Trump wants to stiff Giuliani on his legal bills.

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2916
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7120 on: January 17, 2021, 01:04:44 PM »
A US President is entitled to a pension of $219,000 per year, and begins immediately after the president leaves office.

From a logistical standpoint, this is one of the reasons why conviction in the Senate would have consequences: DJT would lose that pension. Suppose Trump lives another decade or so (age 85) - that’s $2.5MM we’ll be paying him*  Granted that’s a rounding-error when it comes to the overall payroll of the federal government, but if one believes the president committed impeachable offense(s), there’s a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to convict.

*Carter has gotten the most pension $ in absolute terms, as he has been collecting for a record 41 years.

Much more concerned about his access to classified information.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14207
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7121 on: January 17, 2021, 02:22:47 PM »
A US President is entitled to a pension of $219,000 per year, and begins immediately after the president leaves office.

From a logistical standpoint, this is one of the reasons why conviction in the Senate would have consequences: DJT would lose that pension. Suppose Trump lives another decade or so (age 85) - that’s $2.5MM we’ll be paying him*  Granted that’s a rounding-error when it comes to the overall payroll of the federal government, but if one believes the president committed impeachable offense(s), there’s a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to convict.

*Carter has gotten the most pension $ in absolute terms, as he has been collecting for a record 41 years.

Much more concerned about his access to classified information.

My understanding is that past presidents are only ‘read-in” to classified information when it is related to their administration and as a professional courtesy.  There is no obligation to inform past-presidents, and it’s at the discretion of the NSA and the current president.

As Trump has shown little/no interest in classified briefings *during* his tenure, I’m not overly concerned that the Biden administration will be sharing a lot with him, or that Trump will care to listen. 

Retireatee1

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Location: Fort Mill, SC
    • Retireator.org
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7122 on: January 17, 2021, 02:37:32 PM »
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Well there's a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity, and a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence.  Did this twin study account for that?

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4518
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7123 on: January 17, 2021, 04:38:25 PM »
Hey Parler's back. Almost. Hosted by Epik. Same host as a variety of other far right websites.

Message on the singular homepage: "We will not let civil discourse perish!"

I don't think the CEO's version of civil discourse the same as other people's civil discourse.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6153
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7124 on: January 17, 2021, 04:48:11 PM »
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Well there's a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity, and a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence.  Did this twin study account for that?
I've no idea. I think you're going to have to do your own research on that one.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14207
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7125 on: January 17, 2021, 05:36:28 PM »
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Well there's a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity, and a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence.  Did this twin study account for that?
I've no idea. I think you're going to have to do your own research on that one.
Correlation also isn’t causation. And from what I saw in my precursors search, of ~83 studies only a handful found a strong link, most couldn’t detect a difference. And Jews are the most highly educated, followed by Christians (according to one). Take from that what you will...

FIRE Artist

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Location: YEG
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7126 on: January 17, 2021, 07:15:38 PM »
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Well there's a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity, and a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence.  Did this twin study account for that?
I've no idea. I think you're going to have to do your own research on that one.
Correlation also isn’t causation. And from what I saw in my precursors search, of ~83 studies only a handful found a strong link, most couldn’t detect a difference. And Jews are the most highly educated, followed by Christians (according to one). Take from that what you will...

Religious affiliation also does not actually mean spiritual belief.  I can imagine that many educated people see personal advantage to continue to affiliate with their house of worship even if they are non believers.  Heck, I suspect a number of church leaders do not actually believe, but know they can derive personal wealth from their chosen profession. 

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4168
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7127 on: January 18, 2021, 07:38:36 AM »
Is it more pronounced in the USA or is this a stage of societal growth and maturation that the USA is going through?

Seems like I've seen evidence of this kind of BS in the news in Germany and England for example. Of course the fringe hasn't tried to overthrow their government in recent times.

I think trying to destroy each other and leaving millions dead in the wake forces societies to either collapse or grow up. It seems that the latter happened after WWII for Europe. The US was affected, but less so. If anyone "won" WW2 it was us, and we didn't learn the proper lessons from that experience (too much "we're the best! let's beat the commies!" and not enough "well that was really really stupid and how about we don't do that again, ever?"). That type of cultural jingo-ism is much more a part of most US cultures than European cultures. That's my History 101 - level take on it. Will not bore anyone with the further nuances (of which there are many).

I actually think the US-built world order--the United Nations, NATO, the WTO--sprang from the US learning many lessons from Europe's suffering. That one political faction within the US who didn't believe these things gained power seventy-one years later doesn't mean the US didn't learn.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4168
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7128 on: January 18, 2021, 07:45:04 AM »
It's been a finding of twin studies (studies of identical twins who are brought up separately) for quite a few years.  Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in different families have a greater tendency towards both having spirituality or agnosticism/aetheism than would be expected by random chance.

Well there's a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity, and a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence.  Did this twin study account for that?
I've no idea. I think you're going to have to do your own research on that one.
Correlation also isn’t causation. And from what I saw in my precursors search, of ~83 studies only a handful found a strong link, most couldn’t detect a difference. And Jews are the most highly educated, followed by Christians (according to one). Take from that what you will...

I'm trying to think through the twin-study and this thought. Are twin studies typically defended by saying that the processes through which twins are adopted are random? WRT spirituality, I think we lose some of that to the extent that families with a faith community are favored by adoption organizations, particularly beginning during the Bush administration.

A strength of the twin studies are that the biology--along with many unobservable similarities--are held largely constant?

Apologies for derailing the thread in our last hours of being outraged by President Trump, but I always enjoy these types of discussions.

Omy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7129 on: January 18, 2021, 07:55:46 AM »
Who will be the most outrageous recipient of a pardon this week? Or will the sheer number be the outrageous thing?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14207
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7130 on: January 18, 2021, 08:18:24 AM »
Who will be the most outrageous recipient of a pardon this week? Or will the sheer number be the outrageous thing?

Steve Bannon seems likely (for defrauding Trump's own supporters by embezzling money donated to "build the wall!").

Though the most outrageous would be either a self-pardon or a blanket pardon for this family members.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4223
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7131 on: January 18, 2021, 08:25:09 AM »
I fully expect that he'll pardon his adult children, Stephen Miller, Rudy Giuliani, and anyone else in his inner circle who's remained loyal even after the insurrection. I would not be surprised at all to learn that he bought their loyalty with pardons.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6272

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4223
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7133 on: January 18, 2021, 08:50:27 AM »
https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-associate-reportedly-trump-pardon-costs-2-million-nyt-2021-1

Well sure, you can't expect him to live off of his measly presidential pension, right? [/sarcasm] Especially now that Deutsche Bank has cut off his line of credit.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6272
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7134 on: January 18, 2021, 08:55:35 AM »
https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-associate-reportedly-trump-pardon-costs-2-million-nyt-2021-1

Well sure, you can't expect him to live off of his measly presidential pension, right? [/sarcasm] Especially now that Deutsche Bank has cut off his line of credit.

I am really hoping that the GOP is going to realize the best way to save their party from going down forever is to cut ties with Trump and impeach him, but....maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing for them to go down forever. I don't know..

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4518
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7135 on: January 18, 2021, 09:05:08 AM »
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6272
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7136 on: January 18, 2021, 09:09:00 AM »
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4168
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7137 on: January 18, 2021, 09:31:34 AM »
https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-associate-reportedly-trump-pardon-costs-2-million-nyt-2021-1

Well sure, you can't expect him to live off of his measly presidential pension, right? [/sarcasm] Especially now that Deutsche Bank has cut off his line of credit.

I am really hoping that the GOP is going to realize the best way to save their party from going down forever is to cut ties with Trump and impeach him, but....maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing for them to go down forever. I don't know..

I'm pessimistic, but keeping my GOP registration for now in case Lara Trump really does run for NC Senate, so I can vote against her in the primary.

geekette

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2091
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7138 on: January 18, 2021, 09:38:17 AM »
I'm pessimistic, but keeping my GOP registration for now in case Lara Trump really does run for NC Senate, so I can vote against her in the primary.
I'm registered independent in NC, so I can too.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6153
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7139 on: January 18, 2021, 09:38:24 AM »
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.
It should be possible for the federal courts, ending at the Supreme Court, to declare null and vold a pardon which was outside the powers of the President.

There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.

I would like to think that there is also an argument based on the Presidential Oath of Office, which states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1.  The President cannot take office until the Oath is sworn.
2.  The Oath must have more meaning than just being a form of words to be spoken, otherwise the President could recite something as meaningless as "Humpty Dumpty" in order to become President.
3.  The Oath is a statement about the President's future actions: "will".
4.  The Oath is therefore a statement that means that the President's powers and future actions are limited by its words.
5.  The President is therefore limited to issuing pardons which faithfully execute his office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
6.  A Presidential pardon for himself does not uphold the Constitution.  Nor does a Presidential pardon for any person who is a co-conspirator with the President or has committed crimes jointly with or in collusion with the President or has committed crimes in the role of member of the President's Administration.

That may all be wishful thinking of course, but it's an argument I'd be prepared to make in court.  The overarching argument in its favour is that it is the only/best logical argument available to ensure that a President, the President's co-conspirators and the President's henchmen in the Administration are not effectively placed above and beyond the law for their four year term by the exercise of the Presidential power of pardon.   The emphasis on the Oath of Office having meaning and effect should be welcome to the "originalists" on the Supreme Court.

Without this argument, the President, the Presidency and the Administration are all effectively above the law.

"Did Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?"  (Hancock)
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 09:53:14 AM by former player »

Fireball

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7140 on: January 18, 2021, 09:45:40 AM »
https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-associate-reportedly-trump-pardon-costs-2-million-nyt-2021-1

Well sure, you can't expect him to live off of his measly presidential pension, right? [/sarcasm] Especially now that Deutsche Bank has cut off his line of credit.

I am really hoping that the GOP is going to realize the best way to save their party from going down forever is to cut ties with Trump and impeach him, but....maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing for them to go down forever. I don't know..

I'm sure the GOP brass have realized that for a while, but they'll be hesitant to do so given how loyal Trump's followers are. Personally, I hope Twitter and Facebook reinstate his accounts and Trump uses them to fracture the party over the next four years.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7141 on: January 18, 2021, 09:49:26 AM »
I'm pessimistic, but keeping my GOP registration for now in case Lara Trump really does run for NC Senate, so I can vote against her in the primary.
I'm registered independent in NC, so I can too.

+1, both parties have open primaries in NC, so there's really no reason to be registered as anything other than unaffiliated unless you want to apply to be one of the party's Electors or something.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2854
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7142 on: January 18, 2021, 09:52:47 AM »
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.
It should be possible for the federal courts, ending at the Supreme Court, to declare null and vold a pardon which was outside the powers of the President.

There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.

I would like to think that there is also an argument based on the Presidential Oath of Office, which states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1.  The President cannot take office until the Oath is sworn.
2.  The Oath must have more meaning than just being a form of words to be spoken, otherwise the President could recite something as meaningless as "Humpty Dumpty" in order to become President.
3.  The Oath is a statement about the President's future actions: "will".
4.  The Oath is therefore a statement that means that the President's powers and future actions are limited by the Oath.
5.  The President is therefore limited to issuing pardons which faithfulyl execute his office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
6.  A Presidential pardon for himself does not uphold the Constitution.  Nor does a Presidential pardon for any person who is a co-conspirator with the President or has committed crimes jointly with or in collusion with the President or has committed crimes in the role of member of the President's Administration.

That may all be wishful thinking of course, but it's an argument I'd be prepared to make in court.  The overarching argument in its favour is that it is the only/best logical argument available to ensure that a President, the President's co-conspirators and the President's henchmen in the Administration are not effectively placed above and beyond the law for their four year term by the exercise of the Presidential power of pardon.

"Did Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?"  (Hancock)

1) Conviction in the senate prior to pardon would work. (ie, the ITMFA solution)
2) Nixon asked about self pardon and was advised that, No, you cannot do that.
3) This seems like a common law read of the statute in that it makes no sense to be able to self-pardon and the framers clearly did not want to establish a king/sovereign, so would not be valid.
4) the problem with the line of thinking is that it to some extent requires an interpretation of intent to be consistent with the Oath, which is not a part of the pardon power. Your line of argument should also be applicable to other pardons granted. For example, Arpaio clearly violated his oath as Sheriff, but he got a pardon. Flynn as well.

The actions of the modern GOP have laid bare a flaw in the structure of our government that it requires that the participants be interested in governance and adherence to norms. The system can be abused if those norms are subverted to personal/political gain.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2034
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7143 on: January 18, 2021, 10:05:46 AM »


Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

No.

The president is the  sole arbiter of their exercise of the Pardon Power.

The Pardon Power is plenary
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 10:08:46 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6153
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7144 on: January 18, 2021, 10:13:10 AM »


Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

No.

The president is the  sole arbiter of their exercise of the Pardon Power.

The Pardon Power is plenary
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.
It should be possible for the federal courts, ending at the Supreme Court, to declare null and vold a pardon which was outside the powers of the President.

There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.

I would like to think that there is also an argument based on the Presidential Oath of Office, which states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1.  The President cannot take office until the Oath is sworn.
2.  The Oath must have more meaning than just being a form of words to be spoken, otherwise the President could recite something as meaningless as "Humpty Dumpty" in order to become President.
3.  The Oath is a statement about the President's future actions: "will".
4.  The Oath is therefore a statement that means that the President's powers and future actions are limited by the Oath.
5.  The President is therefore limited to issuing pardons which faithfulyl execute his office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
6.  A Presidential pardon for himself does not uphold the Constitution.  Nor does a Presidential pardon for any person who is a co-conspirator with the President or has committed crimes jointly with or in collusion with the President or has committed crimes in the role of member of the President's Administration.

That may all be wishful thinking of course, but it's an argument I'd be prepared to make in court.  The overarching argument in its favour is that it is the only/best logical argument available to ensure that a President, the President's co-conspirators and the President's henchmen in the Administration are not effectively placed above and beyond the law for their four year term by the exercise of the Presidential power of pardon.

"Did Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?"  (Hancock)

1) Conviction in the senate prior to pardon would work. (ie, the ITMFA solution)
2) Nixon asked about self pardon and was advised that, No, you cannot do that.
3) This seems like a common law read of the statute in that it makes no sense to be able to self-pardon and the framers clearly did not want to establish a king/sovereign, so would not be valid.
4) the problem with the line of thinking is that it to some extent requires an interpretation of intent to be consistent with the Oath, which is not a part of the pardon power. Your line of argument should also be applicable to other pardons granted. For example, Arpaio clearly violated his oath as Sheriff, but he got a pardon. Flynn as well.

The actions of the modern GOP have laid bare a flaw in the structure of our government that it requires that the participants be interested in governance and adherence to norms. The system can be abused if those norms are subverted to personal/political gain.
Then I am sorry to say this, but if this is the case then United States democracy is fucked.  Maybe not in the Biden Presidency, but at some point a Trumpist President is going to come along and that will be the end of democracy in the USA  - because the President will order an unlawful taking over of power in Congress, then pardon those who carry it out, and there will be no legal recourse.  The end.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2854
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7145 on: January 18, 2021, 10:25:25 AM »


Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

No.

The president is the  sole arbiter of their exercise of the Pardon Power.

The Pardon Power is plenary
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.
It should be possible for the federal courts, ending at the Supreme Court, to declare null and vold a pardon which was outside the powers of the President.

There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.

I would like to think that there is also an argument based on the Presidential Oath of Office, which states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1.  The President cannot take office until the Oath is sworn.
2.  The Oath must have more meaning than just being a form of words to be spoken, otherwise the President could recite something as meaningless as "Humpty Dumpty" in order to become President.
3.  The Oath is a statement about the President's future actions: "will".
4.  The Oath is therefore a statement that means that the President's powers and future actions are limited by the Oath.
5.  The President is therefore limited to issuing pardons which faithfulyl execute his office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
6.  A Presidential pardon for himself does not uphold the Constitution.  Nor does a Presidential pardon for any person who is a co-conspirator with the President or has committed crimes jointly with or in collusion with the President or has committed crimes in the role of member of the President's Administration.

That may all be wishful thinking of course, but it's an argument I'd be prepared to make in court.  The overarching argument in its favour is that it is the only/best logical argument available to ensure that a President, the President's co-conspirators and the President's henchmen in the Administration are not effectively placed above and beyond the law for their four year term by the exercise of the Presidential power of pardon.

"Did Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?"  (Hancock)

1) Conviction in the senate prior to pardon would work. (ie, the ITMFA solution)
2) Nixon asked about self pardon and was advised that, No, you cannot do that.
3) This seems like a common law read of the statute in that it makes no sense to be able to self-pardon and the framers clearly did not want to establish a king/sovereign, so would not be valid.
4) the problem with the line of thinking is that it to some extent requires an interpretation of intent to be consistent with the Oath, which is not a part of the pardon power. Your line of argument should also be applicable to other pardons granted. For example, Arpaio clearly violated his oath as Sheriff, but he got a pardon. Flynn as well.

The actions of the modern GOP have laid bare a flaw in the structure of our government that it requires that the participants be interested in governance and adherence to norms. The system can be abused if those norms are subverted to personal/political gain.
Then I am sorry to say this, but if this is the case then United States democracy is fucked.  Maybe not in the Biden Presidency, but at some point a Trumpist President is going to come along and that will be the end of democracy in the USA  - because the President will order an unlawful taking over of power in Congress, then pardon those who carry it out, and there will be no legal recourse.  The end.
Our structure inadvertently creates incentives for polarization through both the formal and informal elements (executive set against legislative, emergence of political parties with disparate demographics, etc). We do have some problems. Ours was a good first draft, but one not often emulated by other countries who are setting up democracies... even those done by the US (Japan, etc). I think the proportionate representation models are more equitable and stable and we would be well served to work towards implementing those structures at home.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2034
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7146 on: January 18, 2021, 10:36:24 AM »

I wish this brought some sense of relief, but I fear that impeaching Trump is the easy part. The long lasting false-mythology of the stolen election, and deep divisions laid bare by the Trump presidency will be tough to grapple with.

This is not a mere political issue - it's a cognitive bias issue, with deep behavioral, neurological and psychological roots.

Implicit bias is a thing - and the research shows that conservatives think in more binary ways than liberals do: it's a yes/no, good/bad/, black/white, right/wrong dynamic.

Just one example of the academic research, here:

https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.16030051

"There is increasing evidence that neurobiological factors mediate where people fall on a general conservative-liberal axis that involves social, cultural, religious, economic, and other domains, as well as political ideology. Many studies now indicate that differences between extreme conservatives and extreme liberals are not entirely due to differences in socioeconomic, cultural, or other learned attributes, or rational consideration of the issues.3 Conservatism-liberalism is also associated with differences in personality, attention, memory, perception, emotional reactions, problem-solving, and response choices..."

So it's not about facts, per se. And it's not something that we can persuade them into or out of. Their brains actually interpret threat, risk, and actions differently.

Two prominent academics who do this sort of research: Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt of Stanford, and Dr. Jack Glaser at Berkeley....

I've long thought  there are inherent "mental" differences that influence an individual to tend toward a "conservative" or a "liberal" perspective.




Left Brains vs. Right Brains - Scientific Americanwww.scientificamerican.com › article › left-brains-vs-ri...
Dec 1, 2007 — Political ideology is tied to how the brain manages conflict ... that used a simple cognitive test to compare liberal and conservative thinkers.

Politics on the Brain: Scans Show Whether You Lean Left or ...www.livescience.com › 13608-brain-political-ideology-...
Apr 7, 2011 — Political ideology, and whether a person is liberal or conservative, might ... Politics on the Brain: Scans Show Whether You Lean Left or Right.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2034
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
human nature 9-0
« Reply #7147 on: January 18, 2021, 10:44:16 AM »
Is there ANY mechanism that would stop Trump pardoning someone or selling pardons quickly?

Is there anyway to rescind Presidential pardons?

I don't think so.
It should be possible for the federal courts, ending at the Supreme Court, to declare null and vold a pardon which was outside the powers of the President.

There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.

I would like to think that there is also an argument based on the Presidential Oath of Office, which states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1.  The President cannot take office until the Oath is sworn.
2.  The Oath must have more meaning than just being a form of words to be spoken, otherwise the President could recite something as meaningless as "Humpty Dumpty" in order to become President.
3.  The Oath is a statement about the President's future actions: "will".
4.  The Oath is therefore a statement that means that the President's powers and future actions are limited by its words.
5.  The President is therefore limited to issuing pardons which faithfully execute his office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
6.  A Presidential pardon for himself does not uphold the Constitution.  Nor does a Presidential pardon for any person who is a co-conspirator with the President or has committed crimes jointly with or in collusion with the President or has committed crimes in the role of member of the President's Administration.

That may all be wishful thinking of course, but it's an argument I'd be prepared to make in court.  The overarching argument in its favour is that it is the only/best logical argument available to ensure that a President, the President's co-conspirators and the President's henchmen in the Administration are not effectively placed above and beyond the law for their four year term by the exercise of the Presidential power of pardon.   The emphasis on the Oath of Office having meaning and effect should be welcome to the "originalists" on the Supreme Court.

Without this argument, the President, the Presidency and the Administration are all effectively above the law.

"Did Magna Carta mean nothing to you?  Did she die in vain?"  (Hancock)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7148 on: January 18, 2021, 10:49:12 AM »
A lot of South American democracies actually were setup to model the US. The problem is that most of them failed, many of them have rewritten themselves as unicameral systems instead. Even Britain themselves have basically neutered the House of Lords to the point of them practically being a unicameral system. Canada I believe has no provincial level upper chambers anymore and even their national one is mostly just a box-checker now.

In the US, if it's not already obvious that the national Senate is a backwards regressive institution, then it should be doubly obvious that all of our State level upper chambers are complete wastes of time and resources. You'd think that perhaps liberal states would want to model a Senate-less democracy to prove their effectiveness. But it seems like there is little appetite to push this, or no one willing to lead the charge. Nebraska has had a unicameral system for what 100 years now? They don't seem to have been any worse off.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2034
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7149 on: January 18, 2021, 10:53:58 AM »


There seems to be reasonable agreement that it is outside the powers of the President to pardon himself, mainly on the ground that a pardon is "given" and a President can't "give" himself something.



Self-pardon in any case violates the primacy of impartial, dispassionate adjudication.


The Supreme Court has never adjudicated the issue of a presidential self-pardon.

If the issue of a presidential self-pardon ever comes before the Supreme Court I predict a 9-0 ruling against self-pardon.

Due to human nature, a party that has a central self-interest in the outcome of their case is presumed incapable of scrupulously impartial  judgment, one of the requisites of equitable adjudication.

A presidential  power of self-pardon invites egregious, capricious  law-breaking and autocratic subversion of justice.



"Nemo judex in causa sua/nemo judex in sua causa is a Latin phrase that means, literally, 'no-one is judge in his own cause.'It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest."