Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday December 07, @01:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the and-a-polite-discussion-ensued... dept.

Recently published in Journal of Social and Political Psychology by Thomas F. Pettigrew seeks to understand the psychological profile of Trump supporters:

The Trump movement is not singular within the United States (the Know Nothing movement in the 1850s, the Wallace movement in the 1960s, and the more recent Tea Party Movement). Moreover, other democracies have seen similar movements (e.g., Austria's Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Blok, France's National Front, Germany's Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), and Britain's U.K. Independence Party (UKIP).

In virtually all these cases, the tinder especially involved male nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of voters as well. Five highly interrelated characteristics stand out that are central to a social psychological analysis – authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation.No one factor describes Trump's supporters. But an array of factors – many of them reflecting five major social psychological phenomena can help to account for this extraordinary political event: authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact.


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2 3
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday December 07, @01:21AM (105 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Thursday December 07, @01:21AM (#606516)

    I don't know who said it first, I read an uncredited version.

    the 2 party system is like a pile of shit looking into a mirror.

    Both parties have completely sold out the average person. The R's seems to be doubling down on the asshole quotient (tax cuts for the rich, shrink national parks, support a pedo from AK to congress, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?)

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by stretch611 on Thursday December 07, @01:43AM (25 children)

      by stretch611 (6199) on Thursday December 07, @01:43AM (#606525)

      I agree that the 2 party system is a pile of shit.

      The two party system allows us to leave assholes in power because people vote for the lesser of two evils. But this is what allows us to keep horrendous asshats in power; when you only have to beat your single opponent, and they are just as bad, there is no incentive to actually have someone good.

      For being more of a fuck you to the two major parties, why are the people supporting one of the two parties to do it?

      The way out is to vote third party. Of course everyone says that it is throwing away your vote. Saying that keeps the 2 parties in power, which is why all the politicians and media report that you are wasting your vote.

      It won't be a waste when enough people wake up and do it. When we have an option and politicians actually have to compete with competent competition, it will get better.

      People say the third party candidates aren't that good. I voted for Johnson last year... Tell me... even if you don't know him... could he be worse than Trump? or Hillary? possibly, but not very likely.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 07, @03:30AM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @03:30AM (#606613) Journal

        politicians actually have to compete with competent competition

        I'm not even sure that's a possibility. You are asking far to much of your fellow man.

        --
        #Hillarygropedme
        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 07, @05:55PM

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @05:55PM (#606896)

          I'm not commenting on the rest of the crap, since it's been hashed out again and again and again and again.....

          but your fucking sig man made me laugh out loud this morning.

          Merry Christmas

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @04:19AM (14 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @04:19AM (#606637)

        Ralph Nader is a really smart guy.
        He has also run for president as a 3rd-party candidate 4 times.
        He now says that that's not the best bet.

        If you look at the election return numbers, he's clearly right.
        (You have to go back to Lincoln to see one of the Big 2 parties getting bumped.)

        Ralph says that getting involved in the existing Big 2 is the best plan.
        Do what the Tea Party did and take over the party that you think needs improvement, making sure that the right people get nominated and the right platform gets adopted.

        If you want real change, showing up at the polls occasionally is not enough.

        Thom Hartmann closes his radio/TV program with
        "Remember: Democracy begins with you. Get out there. Get active. Tag. You're it."

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 1) by rylyeh on Thursday December 07, @07:11AM (5 children)

          by rylyeh (6726) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {htadak}> on Thursday December 07, @07:11AM (#606684)

          All a 'Third Party' needs to become a major political force is a charismatic, maverick leader who can out-think the other parties by thinking out of the box to solve concrete problems.

          Those of like mind will flock to the new 'Third Party' when this happens. 🚀

          --
          “Don’t move,” he cautioned, “for in these rays we are able to be seen as well as to see.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @10:54AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @10:54AM (#606754)

            I noticed that you didn't give an example that followed your model and was successful.

            Another thing that Ralph Nader notes is that thinking that you can easily grab the top spot and that the world will fall in line behind you is just silly.

            It takes LOT AND LOTS of -LOCAL- organizations to get things going.
            That is, precinct-level operations.
            You need a bunch of folks from your party on town councils, on county commissions, in state assemblies, and in Congress before you will ever get traction for your agenda at the national level.

            I mention the "bottom-up" thing a lot here.
            This is very much a case where that applies.

            Having a guy who connects with the masses is a big plus, but it takes organization to move the ball down the field.
            One guy going it alone is gonna get creamed.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 1) by redneckmother on Thursday December 07, @04:56PM (3 children)

            by redneckmother (3597) on Thursday December 07, @04:56PM (#606863)

            Oh. Too bad Bernie Sanders didn't run as a 3rd party candidate.

            --
            Pitchforks? Check. Torches? Check. Lampposts? Check. Rope? Oh crap, Colorado smoked all the Hemp!
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday December 07, @09:01PM (2 children)

              by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday December 07, @09:01PM (#606985)

              As a non-American it strikes me as weird that you talk about third parties.

              I live in a country of about 4 million people that until recently had eight parties in Parliament.

              We have proportional voting though. We also have sane(ish) campaign finance rules and an independent electoral comision that sets the electorate boundaries.

              I'm going to continue to assume that a country of 350 million or so that winds up represented by only two parties is not really a democracy at all, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

              (The whole big-tent party argument is not compelling).

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:23PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:23PM (#607039)

                Even as the same teachers glossing over it tell us we need to study our history classes lest we be doomed to repeat the past.

                America has *NEVER* since the *BEGINNING* been by the people, for the people. It was always for the merchants and landowners. The regular colonists, farmers, and common man were regularly fucked over, including as veterans of the revolutionary war.

                While there have been some some 'apparent' political shifts over the years, it was usually infighting between the different merchant/landowner/media mogul/faux aristocrat class influencing the voters in ways that were financially beneficial to them. Either by pushing legislation benefitting them, causing controversy benefitting them, or by weakening opponents through erosion of their economic base (see both the whiskey tax and slavery, which favored the genteel class over the working class, and the industrialists over the plantation owners.) In the end it shoudl err on the side of the individual, but only so long as the individual was making a good faith effort and not doing anything intended to obviously defraud the party investing in them.

                One of the details often overlooked in regards to slavery is that during the early colonial period slavery *WAS* illegal. However indentured servitude was not. Which thanks to weak labor laws and enforcement, combined with an uneducated working class seeking opportunities in the new world lead to some people being contractually bound into servitude by immoral people who found ways to defraud their indentured servants from agreed upon contractual terms that would have allowed them to buy our their contracts after a few years, fulfilling the economic investment in bringing them to the new world, while providing sufficient repayment to hire a replacement worker at the end of their term. The same thing happened with company towns, factory jobs, slavery itself (losing all semblance of contractual labor), and continues even today with military service and a variety of 'foreign held corporation' jobs that work around American labor laws by being flagged in other countries (see various maritime industries for current examples.)

                The real problem faced both then and today is the same: Using legal minutae to distract from the simple question: Is a certain business relationship mutually beneficial, or disadvantaging to one, usually weaker, party? If the answer is yes and results in said party being unable to move on within 2-5 years (perhaps longer, but only in the case of trade professions requiring 10 or more years of experience, and only if the investment can be terminated at 2 year intervals if either party is unsatisfied with no financial balance remaining between them.)

              • (Score: 1) by rylyeh on Sunday December 10, @03:47AM

                by rylyeh (6726) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {htadak}> on Sunday December 10, @03:47AM (#607888)

                Yes, it is quite apparent that the US suffers form an overwhelming lack of imagination when it comes to politics as well as education, etc.

                --
                “Don’t move,” he cautioned, “for in these rays we are able to be seen as well as to see.
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday December 07, @10:01AM (7 children)

          by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Thursday December 07, @10:01AM (#606746) Homepage
          "Remember: Democracy begins with you. Get out there. Get active. Tag. You're it."

          Awww, how cute. Make them feel like they're important, eh?, humaans love flattery like that.

          "Remember: flying begins with you. Get out there. Get flapping."
          --
          I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:05AM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:05AM (#606756)

            The example of The Tea Party was already given.
            Surely you noticed how they hijacked the GOP.

            It's completely do-able.
            The first step is showing up and signing up.

            ...and the Democratic Socialists[1] of America have been working on the superdelegates thing.

            [1] I really hate redundant names.
            ...and they aren't about the collective ownership of the means of production either.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday December 07, @03:37PM (2 children)

              by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Thursday December 07, @03:37PM (#606824) Homepage
              Democracy begins with a miracle (it's not dominant over any other prevailing system apart from anarchy).

              Once democracy has begun, can it *continue* with the help of you being active.

              The USA's approximation to democracy is so dysfunctional it's naive to call it a democracy. With the dysfunctional electoral college system as it currently is, it's not even a democratically elected oligarchy. And you're the poster-child for Duverger's law to boot (in large part due to the flaws in the system that make it undemocratic), which almost guarantees the stable equilibrium.

              The USA needs the miracle still. (Ever worse and worse presidents might be the impetus required, but you're only at the President Comacho level currently, there's plenty worse possible.)
              --
              I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @09:25PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @09:25PM (#607001)

                The USA's approximation to democracy is so dysfunctional it's naive to call it a democracy

                Amen.
                I find the term Oligarchy to be appropriate.
                It's the way the place was set up.
                ...with just enough of a veneer to convince the suckers that they count.
                The term The 99 Percent, coined by Occupy, puts a fine point on how much power Joe Average has--if he'd use it collectively against his actual oppressors.

                Duverger's law

                Didn't know that it had a name.
                Yeah. You may have seen me advocating here for Ranked Choice Voting.
                All the really great places have that.
                Way more democratic.

                President Comacho

                s/Comacho/Camacho
                ...but, yeah.

                you're

                I keep forgetting that you're in .fi.

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Friday December 08, @07:13AM

                  I left Finland 7 yars ago, but still work for a Finnish company, so spend a lot of time there. I'm now in Estonia. However, socio-politically Estonia modelled itself a lot on the Finnish model, which was one reason it became as successful as it did so quickly.

                  One thing I like about Estonia is that, at least for municipal elections, a lot of the time when you vote for person X, and they reach a mandate level, they you are represented by person X precisely, not just some party person X has chosen to affiliate themself to. A full 43% of the representatives are independent or ad hoc coalitions (representing 27% of the voters)
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_municipal_elections,_2017

                  Duverger's Law still hasn't kicked in here, even though the 5% cutoff for any representation at all (in Tallinn, with 79 seats, even 2% of the vote is surely enough to prove there should be representation) does encourage it somewhat. (I'm one of those idealists who believes that if 2% of Tallinn's population is extremist racist whackjobs then, as long as they don't interfere with the smooth-running of democracy, they should be represented.}
                  --
                  I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @05:41PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @05:41PM (#606888)

              I'm not sure that the Tea Party hijacked the republicans, so much as gave notice to the party bosses that they couldn't just arbitrarily ignore their constituency.

              In a way, it was a populist democratic wave in the republican base. They demanded purity, not a total policy base change. Their slogan was that they were going RINO-hunting.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @09:08PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @09:08PM (#606992)

                Disagree strongly.
                The Tea Party was a bunch of White suckers, funded by the Koch brothers.
                They put the Republican mantra Increase inequality via tax cuts for the rich on steroids, i.e. working against their own best interest.

                (The main GOP mechanism doesn't do Joe Average a bit of good, BTW.
                The latest scam is big tax cuts for billionaires and corporations that are permanent and tiny tax cuts for a small number of folks--with the latter expiring quickly, after which Joe Average's share of costs goes up while programs that benefit him have been cut.)

                their constituency

                Last count I saw said that 29 percent of USAians say they approve of the #GOPTaxScam.
                (...and the poll was taken while the Repugs were still scribbling things into the margins of the bill).
                That number doesn't seem to indicate to me that they're serving their base in an acceptable way.
                It certainly doesn't sound "populist".

                Republicanism[1] only works if your goal is to further empower The Ownership Class (The Oligarchy).
                If you're looking to shift power to Joe Average, you bet on the wrong horse.

                [1] ...and voting Democrat wasn't significantly better last time around--and for a lot of elections before that.
                Neoliberals of all stripes suck.

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 07, @06:28PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday December 07, @06:28PM (#606923) Journal

            "Remember: flying begins with you. Get out there. Get flapping."

            Ummm....you are aware that humans have the ability to fly now, right? All because a couple guys got out there...

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Thursday December 07, @06:08AM (4 children)

        by Sulla (5173) on Thursday December 07, @06:08AM (#606670) Journal

        The general opinion of the subsect of 18 million people who go to 4chan a month (claims google analytics) who go to /pol/ was that Trump was a fuck you to the republican party as well. Old people thought him better than hill out of no other choice and young folks loved how much he shit all over the primary process. I don't really consider him a rep due to his views going back being traditionally liberal in some respects (acceptance of gays) and non-republican due to his running as reform party in 2000. The amount of hatred that establishment republicans have for him is nice as well.

        I voted for johnson in 2012 but he annoyed me with his focus on "dude weed" in the 2016 run. Ended up voting for Daryl Perry instead in '16 but don't like him as much recently.

        Another unaccepted cause of youth support for Trump was that he was funner to meme than Hill. The more the left protested and called them evil the more they would meme harder for the lulz. Draft our Daughters, Hill having Kuru/Parkinsons, murder lists, email servers, "why am I not 50 points ahead" , etc. Had /pol/ known more about Jeb! Bush's autism early on, they likely would have fought harder for him to have four years of memes. The like of Trump would have died much faster if it wasnt for Drumpf, two scoops, made him eat the meatloaf, dumping the koi food, etc. If the media would stop pushing fake issues and latch onto fake things iit is likely places like /pol/ would find other things to do than support the president.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday December 07, @09:20PM (3 children)

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @09:20PM (#606997)

          Trump ran a 2010s election based on memes and social media and awesome tweets

          Hillary ran a textbook perfect 1975 campaign complete with total endorsement and "should be illegal" collusion with every legacy newspaper and legacy TV network out there. Crazy, really. Everything that defined a perfect 1975 campaign. She did nothing post-disco era at all, but she knocked it out of the park for 1975.

          If it were 1970s we'd be talking about Prez Hillary instead of Prez Carter. But of course its 2010s so we got Trump.

          Also Trump hung out with all the big name D party folks in his youth, however, he doesn't molest women or children so the D party didn't want him. Al Franken could only have been a Democrat, ditto bill clinton and all the rest. I was totally confused about Moore, how could that guy not be a "D" party member? Thats what inspires me to think the accounts are fake.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:31PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:31PM (#607045)

            VLM, in case you haven't been paying attention, there are just as many sexual harassment/molestation charges against Republicans at this point as against Democrats.

            Honestly the biggest detail I have seen left out on most of them is what the age of consent was in the particular states at the time the accused actions took place, but just like British Parliament, the US Senate/Legislation/State Governments are as rife with sexual harassers, hebephiles, and other creepers as Hollywood, Print media, and all the others. Hell, at least Hugh Hefner had the sense to start an adult magazine if he wanted to fuck around with and sexually harass women. The rest of those catered to a naive mostly relgious group of people and have a scorecard of most of the major sins.

            Glad I'm an atheist. It saves me from having to keep score :)

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @05:14PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @05:14PM (#607271)

              They don't cover that stuff on Fox.

          • (Score: 1) by toddestan on Sunday December 10, @01:38AM

            by toddestan (4982) on Sunday December 10, @01:38AM (#607855)

            Hillary's big campaign screw-up is that she didn't actually campaign. Trump actually went out there and campaigned, and he we was campaigning everywhere. Deep in Democratic territory, deep in his own territory, out in the swing states, big cities, small towns, places that mattered, places that maybe mattered, and places that didn't matter at all. He was out there campaigning, getting his message out, and drumming up support. And he was successful, as people knew what Trump stood for (even if they thought it was stupid), but not so much for Clinton. She only made the bare minimum number of campaign stops and public appearances that her numbers people said she needed to make, and otherwise was too busy flying between the coasts to attend elite fundraising dinners and doing paid speeches. If Clinton had only put some effort into the middle of the country instead of taking their votes for granted she would be President today.

            A fun fact is that Clinton's side was actually worried that she'd win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote from Trump drumming up so many votes in places that "didn't matter".

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by rigrig on Thursday December 07, @09:31AM

        by rigrig (5129) Subscriber Badge <soylentnews@tubul.net> on Thursday December 07, @09:31AM (#606734) Homepage

        The way out is to vote third party. Of course everyone says that it is throwing away your vote. Saying that keeps the 2 parties in power, which is why all the politicians and media report that you are wasting your vote.
        It won't be a waste when enough people wake up and do it. When we have an option and politicians actually have to compete with competent competition, it will get better.

        The problem is the first-past-the-post system.

        Just imagine Alice being the preferred choice of 40% of voters, and Bob the preferred candidate of 60%.
        They are completely opposite: Alice voters hate almost all Bob policies and vise-versa.

        In comes Carol, whose policies are exactly the same as Bob, except for some minor issue which splits the Bob/Carol voters evenly.
        So now Alice wins with 40% votes over 30% for Bob and 30% for Carol, even though 60% would much rather see either Bob or Carol in charge.

        And even if somehow Bob or Carol wins, that means you end up with a country where 40% of the voters ends up with a president whose policies they hate.

        --
        No one remembers the singer.
      • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday December 07, @05:22PM

        by hendrikboom (1125) on Thursday December 07, @05:22PM (#606876) Homepage

        Third parties will have a chance when proportional representation comes about.

      • (Score: 2) by Sourcery42 on Thursday December 07, @06:29PM

        by Sourcery42 (6400) on Thursday December 07, @06:29PM (#606924)

        “It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
        "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
        "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
        "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
        "I did," said Ford. "It is."
        "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
        "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
        "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
        "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
        "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
        "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
                                      ~ Douglas Adams

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @01:45AM (77 children)

      A) You should read the tax bill before you spout off. The top tax bracket gets no cut at all in the Republican bill last I read it. A whole lot of people do but none of them are what you could rightfully call rich.

      B) Monuments are not even kind of the same thing as parks but Presidents have been declaring enormous swaths of land as monuments so they didn't have to go through that pesky Congressional approval thing for a long time now. It's always been bullshit and everyone with access to a dictionary knows it.

      C) I really don't want to hear about one guy's sexual misbehavior on one side when the other side is having a fire sale on child molestation, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. You might as well be bitching about a jay walker while wearing an I ❤ Stalin t-shirt.

      --
      Save Ferris!
      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by stretch611 on Thursday December 07, @01:50AM (1 child)

        by stretch611 (6199) on Thursday December 07, @01:50AM (#606533)

        You might as well be bitching about a jay walker while wearing an I ❤ Stalin t-shirt.

        So that person I saw last week running through the middle of traffic was you!! 😜

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @01:51AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @01:51AM (#606535)

        Stalin was perfectly legal, you authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation person! (The "Whataboutism" is pretty thick with this one.)

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Thursday December 07, @02:12AM (37 children)

        by NewNic (6420) on Thursday December 07, @02:12AM (#606555)

        You didn't read it. Or if you did, you didn't understand it.

        There are tax cuts in there for the ultra wealthy, in the form of tax cuts to pass-through businesses, repeal of the estate tax, etc..

        Also, if the above wasn't a clear enough tax cut, the Senate version reduces the top tax rate from 39.6% to 38.5%. What part of that isn't a tax cut for the wealthy?

        Congress gave the President the power to declare National Monuments. It's not bullshit, it's the law.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @02:33AM (36 children)

          Also, if the above wasn't a clear enough tax cut, the Senate version reduces the top tax rate from 39.6% to 38.5%. What part of that isn't a tax cut for the wealthy?

          The part where that did not exist when I last read up on the bill. Would you care to compare their proposed 1.1% tax cut to the ones the poor and middle-class are slated to get?

          There are tax cuts in there for the ultra wealthy, in the form of tax cuts to pass-through businesses, repeal of the estate tax, etc..

          FTFY. When a break affects more than just the rich, calling it a break for the rich is knowingly spouting disingenuous bullshit. Stop doing that. Not only the rich have something to leave their kids and not only the rich own or invest in businesses.

          Congress gave the President the power to declare National Monuments. It's not bullshit, it's the law.

          You need to read up on the definition of "monument". You'll find it does not mean "enormous swath of unremarkable land". What's been done with that law is roughly akin to declaring the ocean to be the official national flavor of coffee.

          --
          Save Ferris!
          • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday December 07, @02:58AM (18 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @02:58AM (#606588)

            There are tax cuts in there for the ultra wealthy, in the form of tax cuts to pass-through businesses, repeal of the estate tax, etc..

            FTFY. When a break affects more than just the rich, calling it a break for the rich is knowingly spouting disingenuous bullshit.

            Fair enough.

            Let's take the estate tax [cbpp.org]

            the tax framework that President Trump and congressional Republican leaders announced in September proposes to repeal the estate tax — a tax on property (cash, real estate, stock, or other assets) transferred from deceased persons to their heirs. The federal estate tax is due only on the portion of an estate’s value that exceeds roughly $5.5 million per person ($11 million per couple). As a result, only the wealthiest 0.2 percent of estates pay the tax, and typically at fairly moderate rates. Repeal would give these estates windfall tax cuts averaging more than $3 million apiece, benefitting wealthy heirs. But it would do virtually nothing for small farms and businesses, despite the claims of repeal supporters. Repeal would also cost $239 billion over ten years and worsen wealth inequality

            So wealthy heirs benefit to the tune of $239B.

            How about those who won't benefit [washingtonpost.com]?

            But few farmers put the elimination of this tax on the top of their wish lists. Only about 20 farms a year are subject to any inheritance tax, and in almost all cases, those farms have adequate liquid assets to cover the taxes without having to sell any part of the business to do so. After searching for 35 years for one example of a family farm that was lost due to the estate tax Iowa State professor Neil Harl stated simply, “It’s a myth.”

            Not about the farms only, you say, but other medium businesses [politifact.com]?

            How about small businesses and farms? The center projected that only about 80 small farms and closely held businesses would pay any estate tax in 2017. That would amount to about 1 percent of all payers of the estate tax that year. And the estate tax revenue from small businesses and farms, the center said, would amount to fifteen-hundredths of 1 percent of the total paid under the estate tax in 2017.

            So, getting rid of the estate tax would hardly "protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer," as Trump put it.

            Trump's claim doesn't hold up even if you account for small businesses and farms that would potentially benefit from elimination down the road. The number from the Tax Policy Center (80) only refers to the number of small businesses and farms that would have to pay the tax this year.

            Multiplying the amount of small business and farm-based estate taxpayers who are living today by deaths over the next 70 years would still just result in 5,600 small businesses or farms potentially relieved of the tax — vastly smaller than Trump’s "millions."

            Bottom line - here's a tax break that affects only the rich:
            - the wealthy benefit from it greatly ($239B),
            - the medium businesses benefits in what "would amount to fifteen-hundredths of 1 percent of the total paid under the estate tax in 2017",
            - the poor will not benefit at all.

            • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @03:15AM (13 children)

              Interesting. I'll grant you that since you saved me the research. Now a question: so what?

              --
              Save Ferris!
              • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday December 07, @03:37AM (7 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @03:37AM (#606617)

                Now a question: so what?

                If you meant to ask "Now what?", then I'd say "Now you refrain in picturing the tax legislation as all nice and rosy (even if you'd be only tempted to allude this may be the case), and I won't have any more issues."
                Perhaps you may want to continue looking into other tax breaks and evaluate the fairness towards the medium/poor end of the spectrum. Even if the information is for you only, it's still a plus. But this may be wishful thinking from my side.

                (of course, you continue to be free to say whatever things you like, no matter how wise/clever or stupid, you don't need my permission to do that. But that's irrelevant, isn't it)

                • (Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @04:00AM (6 children)

                  No, I meant "so what?". As in "what business is it of yours how someone chooses to dispose of what they've earned?". Did you go in to the office for them and do their job but they got to keep the pay? By what logic do you think you have claim to what they've earned then? Whether they choose to leave it to their worthless, lazy children or to snort blow off hooker's asses and then use it to light their cigars, it's not a damned bit of your business.

                  Also, until you become a flat tax person, don't ever use the word "fairness" when talking about taxes again. It makes you look like an idiot.

                  --
                  Save Ferris!
                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 07, @04:36AM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @04:36AM (#606642)

                    No, I meant "so what?".

                    Then my "of course, you continue to be free to say whatever things you like, no matter how wise/clever or stupid" apply.

                    It makes you look like an idiot.
                    Cultural perspective, I reckon. But, now, if you want to live in that shithole of yours and do nothing to drain it, who am I to object?

                  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Demena on Thursday December 07, @05:31AM

                    by Demena (5637) on Thursday December 07, @05:31AM (#606660)

                    It depends on the definition of "earnt". People can make vast amounts of money in ways that can hardly be described as "earnt". Businessmen are often said to "make money", few say they earn it. To me the use of the tern "earnt" implies sweat of some sort - mind or body. If an famous actor earnt the millions they can negotiate for then a fledgling would "earn" the same - same "work" being done.

                    Tl;dr "Having" money, "earning" money and "making" money are three different things with different economic and moral stature.

                  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday December 07, @06:50AM (2 children)

                    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @06:50AM (#606681) Homepage Journal

                    Not sure why TMB's sincere question got marked "troll". TMB asks: No, I meant "so what?". As in "what business is it of yours how someone chooses to dispose of what they've earned?". It's a fair question.

                    Y'all will know that I am pretty libertarian in my view. Nonetheless, I am all for an estate tax, preferably a large one. Why? Precisely because of that phrase "...what they've earned".

                    In my view, the increasing split between rich and poor is a serious problem for society. And a lot of that split comes from inherited wealth. Inherited wealth is unearned wealth. Anyone who can make themselves a billionaire - more power to them. Passing those billions down, generation to generation? That is a problem, because it creates the upper "1%" class in perpetuity. An estate tax at least puts some sort of a damper on this.

                    --
                    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
                    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:24AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:24AM (#606691)

                      Not sure why TMB's sincere question got marked "troll". TMB asks: No, I meant "so what?". As in "what business is it of yours how someone chooses to dispose of what they've earned?". It's a fair question.

                      Whoa! The level of ignorance is very deep with this one. One: it is TMB. He has been proven wrong, and is trying to double down. Classical, if not very good, trolling. Second, earned? It is not their's! We gave it to them, and it is only their's as long as the majority of society recognizes it as their's. If we ask for some of it back, for the common good, well, it is no longer their's. This is the problem with libertariantards and Republican'ts and certain ex-pats: they think things can exist independently of the rest of reality. They think they are special and separate islands of sovereign citizenry! But separated from everything, what can one be but a giant sucking black hole of emptyness and property rights?

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:29AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:29AM (#606694)

                        But separated from everything, what can one be but a giant sucking fullstop black hole of emptyness and property rights?

                        FTFY

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 08, @02:02AM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08, @02:02AM (#607066)

                    I don't get it.
                    In your mind, what's the relation between "Some tax breaks favors the rich" (which was the point of my post) with "None of your business how they choose to spend their earnt money?" (which is the point of your "So what? "question).
                    Moving goal posts or what?

              • (Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 07, @05:17AM (4 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday December 07, @05:17AM (#606654)

                > Now a question: so what?

                Fuck you, that's what. You lie. You say this thing isn't a giveaway to the rich, you are presented with a clear example of how it is, and when this is shown to you, caught in your lie, you attempt to pretend it doesn't matter with "so what." So fuck you. You lie exactly like all the shithead politicians whose boots you cream yourself licking, even as you make endless noises about how "libertarian" you are.

                You're so full of shit your shoes squelch when you walk, and everyone here can see it. That you think you're fooling anyone but yourself is just the dingleberry cherry on top of the shit sundae that is your entire personality.

                • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:47AM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:47AM (#606680)

                  Insightful? Informative?

                  It's almost enough to make one weep for humanity.

                  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:31AM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:31AM (#606695)

                    Do not ask for whom humanity weeps, oh libertariantard AC, it weeps for you!

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 08, @08:43PM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday December 08, @08:43PM (#607404)

                      Hell no I don't weep for him. I weep for the fact that he's not currently a fine paste under the wheels of some 18-wheeler somewhere maybe, but not for him specifically...

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:07PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:07PM (#606903)

                  Your rage posts really do make me feel better after reading through TMBs slog of shit.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by GreatOutdoors on Friday December 08, @12:18AM (3 children)

              by GreatOutdoors (6408) on Friday December 08, @12:18AM (#607053)

              So instead of actually researching the issue and giving a well thought out response yourself, you posted text word for word from a few libtardian websites that you hand picked? And you want us to take you seriously?

              If you believe that $5.5m only affects the super rich, then you have obviously never owned a small business and likely have very little net worth. And on a final note, if I earned $20m dollars, what gives you the fucking right to take it from me just because I died? I already paid taxes on it, and it is mine. I'll leave it to whoever I please.

              --
              Yes, I did make a logical argument there. You should post a logical response.
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 08, @02:32AM (2 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08, @02:32AM (#607071)

                you posted text word for word from a few libtardian websites that you hand picked

                Which is a bit more than you did.
                And no, those site are not handpicked, they carry the relevant information. Feel free to present others.

                And you want us to take you seriously?

                Us? Just exactly who are those "us"?

                then you have obviously never owned a small business and likely have very little net worth.

                Irrelevant for any argumentation on the topic.

                And on a final note, if I earned $20m dollars, what gives you the fucking right to take it from me just because I died?

                As I'm not living (nor dying) in US, you can Rest In Peace (so to speak), I'm not gonna take a cent.

                Let me end by wishing you a pleasant death experience when the time will come.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @07:46AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @07:46AM (#607123)

                  I want his liver. His libertariantardian spawn can keep the filthy lucre. Oh, and I want the spleen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEi_4Cyx4Uw [youtube.com]

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 08, @09:20AM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08, @09:20AM (#607138)

                    You may need to pay estate tax if he wills them to you.

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @03:04AM (6 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @03:04AM (#606591)

            Sure, family of 2+3 with an income of 40,000 under the old bill gets 2 standard deductions (6000 each) and 3 child credits (1000 each) and 5 personal exemptions (4000 each), for an AGI of 5000, which at 10% is a bill of $500. New house bill: 2 standard deductions (12000 each) and 3 child credits (2000 each), for an AGI of 10000 at 12% is a bill of $1200. What a gigantic cut for that family!

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @03:19AM (4 children)

              Yes, you can cherry pick winners and losers in every proposed tax bracket. Doing so just marks you out as a disingenuous shithead though. You're literally playing "gotcha" politics with actual human people's livelihoods right now.

              --
              Save Ferris!
              • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @03:33AM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @03:33AM (#606614)

                Would you care to compare their proposed 1.1% tax cut to the ones the poor and middle-class are slated to get?

                That is exactly what I did, compared a 1.1% cut to what many poor or middle class (depending on how you define $40,000 a year) would get under that tax plan. But perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by that prompt.

                • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @04:03AM (2 children)

                  No, sweety, you cherry picked numbers that allow you to find a small niche that doesn't see much if any benefit while ignoring all the poor and middle-class people that most definitely do see a very tangible benefit. If you can't see that as being full of shit, you really need to work on being honest within your own mind at the very least.

                  --
                  Save Ferris!
                  • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday December 07, @08:39AM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @08:39AM (#606716)

                    No, sweety, you cherry picked numbers that allow you to find a small niche that doesn't see much if any benefit while ignoring all the poor and middle-class people that most definitely do see a very tangible benefit.

                    Let's not cherry pick then [businessinsider.com]:

                    The Joint Committee on Taxation released a new analysis of the Senate Republican tax bill on Thursday.

                    The analysis showed that in 2019, households of all incomes would get a tax cut.

                    By 2027, however, all households making $US75,000 and under would see a tax increase — and half of the tax cut benefits would go to people making $US1 million and over.

                    A-a-a-a... not allowed to cherry pick means you don't put an arbitrary limit to the time the impact is assessed. If the impact can be estimated for longer periods, you go with it.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @05:17PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @05:17PM (#607274)

                    While I feel more stupid for reading just about anything you write it is fun to watch you revert to "sweety" when you run out of excuses for being wrong.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:52PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:52PM (#606967)

              Uhh no. If you make 40k you're getting money back. If you have kids and non-working spouse, and a house, and bills, you're getting more money back. These changes aren't putting anyone on the other side of the return/pay line.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 07, @03:25AM (6 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @03:25AM (#606610) Journal

            Estate taxes. Wonder what percentage of Americans can claim to have an estate, to tax. The poorest certainly don't. Many people live in a rented room that can be called "spartan", with a couple changes of clothes. Middle class Americans? The bottom half of middle class is moving toward the same condition. I think it safe to say that estate taxes only affect the upper 25% of Americans, at most. And, the less wealthy of that uppper 25% will have their estates confiscated by the various doctors and health care agencies they are forced to deal with in their last weeks/months of life. "No, you don't inherit your mother's home, because she owes it to twelve different health care and hospice care corporations!"

            --
            #Hillarygropedme
            • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday December 07, @03:45AM (5 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @03:45AM (#606622)

              I think it safe to say that estate taxes only affect the upper 25% of Americans, at most.

              I think is safe to say that less than 0.005% from all population [politifact.com] would be affected by the estate tax every year.

              For 2017, the Tax Policy Center estimated, based on past tax data and modeling, that 11,310 individuals will have estates big enough to file an estate tax return. "After allowing for deductions and credits, 5,460 estates will owe tax," the center concluded. "Over two-thirds of these taxable estates will come from the top 10 percent of income earners and close to one-fourth will come from the top 1 percent alone."

              Bottom line: it's a tax break for the rich.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 07, @04:03AM (3 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @04:03AM (#606629) Journal

                Bingo. Thank you for clarification.

                --
                #Hillarygropedme
                • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 07, @05:19AM (2 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday December 07, @05:19AM (#606655)

                  Now stand up to your fellow travelers on this site. You are armed with the facts, and you have a duty as a functioning (?) member of society to confront harmful untruth.

                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 07, @03:27PM (1 child)

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @03:27PM (#606818) Journal

                    Why, yes, 'Zumi, I'll just do that. I'll stand up, since you can't. Fellow travelers, one and all - if you haven't figured it out yet, Trump sucks. He STILL sucks less than the alternative, but he SUCKS!!

                    Now, back to you, 'Zumi. I realize that you've been broken by life, but why can't you stand up and tell the world that all of our choices suck diseased donkey balls?

                    Oh, wait. I haven't triggered anyone, have I? I certainly don't want to hurt any healthy donkey's feelings, or anything. Don't want to start some stereotype about donkeys being diseased.

                    --
                    #Hillarygropedme
                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 08, @08:45PM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday December 08, @08:45PM (#607408)

                      All our choices did suck donkey balls. I agree with you there; I felt so fucking filthy pulling that level for Clinton. Had to keep repeating "it's not FOR Hillary, it's AGAINST all the people the giant orange Oompa Loompa from Hell is gonna bring on board...it's not FOR Hillary it's AGAINST Pence when Fastass McOrangeFace von Shitty Toupee the third eats himself to death."

                      Wish to hell Sanders had won.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday December 07, @09:38PM

                by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @09:38PM (#607007)

                Bottom line: it's a tax break for the rich.

                Its more complicated if you assume "the rich" are smarter than average and have agency. Basically there is a (dumb) tax code that can be avoided if you have time by structuring various things insert much handwaving here.

                So its really a tax on dumb rich people (inheritance, lotto winners, not really sad here) and people who die young and suddenly (a tax on tragedy, how romantic, kick em when they're down, taking money from little orphans, etc)

                Or rephrased, its a social engineering stick to force rich people into behaviors involving working around the tax. I'm not sure this is a useful goal, but there are "happy middlemen" as usual, so ...

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Thursday December 07, @04:23AM (1 child)

            by NewNic (6420) on Thursday December 07, @04:23AM (#606639)

            FTFY. When a break affects more than just the rich, calling it a break for the rich is knowingly spouting disingenuous bullshit. Stop doing that. Not only the rich have something to leave their kids and not only the rich own or invest in businesses.

            No, you didn't fix it. You made it wrong. Pass-through businesses are used primarily by the rich. The middle class people most likely to use pass-through businesses are excluded from the tax cut (professional service businesses).

            Finally, lets be clear: the corporate tax rate cut is a big gift that will mostly go to the ultra wealthy, simply because they have the greatest ownership of corporations.

            You need to read up on the definition of "monument". You'll find it does not mean "enormous swath of unremarkable land". What's been done with that law is roughly akin to declaring the ocean to be the official national flavor of coffee.

            Firstly, the President has the authority to declare this land a national monument. That, as I pointed out earlier, is the law of the land. You do respect US law don't you?

            Just because it doesn't fit the usual definition of monument isn't relevant. In this case, the land is not unremarkable. It has both cultural significance and unusual scenery.

            Other people have taken down all your other points, so I'll leave this question, are you a low-information voter, stupid, or just an ideologue?

            You really do fit the mold of a Trump voter as described in TFA.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 07, @05:22AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday December 07, @05:22AM (#606656)

              He insists he's "libertarian" IIRC. In my experience, with him as one of the prime examples, "libertarian" means "I'm just bright enough to know I don't want to outright cop to being a textbook RWA. So what to do? I know, I'll be an Edgy Edgelord of Edginess! I'll virtue-signal with contentless memes!"

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @09:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @09:13PM (#606993)

            You need to read up on the definition of "monument". You'll find it does not mean "enormous swath of unremarkable land".

            Why, yes it does! Do you know who got the Antiquities Act passed? Yes, a Republican president! The last one, really, who actually tried to Keep America Great. Busted trusts, took down Big Oil, had a "Bully Pulpit". They don't make Republican Presidents like that any more.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday December 07, @02:34AM (16 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @02:34AM (#606576)

        C) I really don't want to hear about one guy's sexual misbehavior on one side when the other side is having a fire sale on child molestation, sexual assault, and sexual harassment.

        Want it or not to hear it, it is not illegal for someone to speak it, right? (large grin)

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @02:40AM (15 children)

          It's not illegal for people who are annoying me to go roll their peckers up in their car windows either. It would really piss me off though. Troll the shit out of me is what it would do. I'd be a sputtering ball of rage. Promise.

          --
          Save Ferris!
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday December 07, @02:47AM (9 children)

            by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @02:47AM (#606581) Journal

            Troll the shit out of me is what it would do. I'd be a sputtering ball of rage. Promise.

            Seems to be already too late, Buzzard! We have been there, done that. You might want to try the "Snotnose approach", described below.

            --
            If you could ensure that your submissions are balanced, accurate and unbiased, you might stand a better chance
            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @03:07AM (8 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @03:07AM (#606593)

              I hope that everyone realizes that your submission is nothing more, and nothing less, than a troll submission. TFA was a troll post when it appeared on the internet. TFA is on par with all the scaremongering by the McCarthyists, half a century ago. Complete and utter shit, from start to finish. All Americans should be a sputtering ball of rage over TFA, as well as your submission of TFA. Sometimes, I question the rationality of our fine editorial staff. Why do they attempt to placate you, and your whining? Why do they accept ANY of your submissions?

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @03:22AM (6 children)

                Well, obviously. We occasionally let through a horribly shitty article just for the opportunity to rip it a new ass though. At least I hope that's why janrinok let this flaming pile of turds through.

                --
                Save Ferris!
                • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @04:15AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @04:15AM (#606635)

                  We occasionally let through a horribly shitty article just for the opportunity to rip it a new ass though.

                  You are such a vivacious, energetic optimist today. And this in spite of your wishes not happening (and in spite of the shit you need to swim through in your daily job).
                  You are projecting quite a heroic Spartan figure, a la "This... is... Spartaaaa...." I mean.
                  You have my unreserved admiration - I hope this will make you sleep well tonight, my hero.

                • (Score: 5, Funny) by janrinok on Thursday December 07, @05:47AM (4 children)

                  by janrinok (52) on Thursday December 07, @05:47AM (#606663)

                  I posted this story in the forlorn hope that people might actually read TFA and its sources. I even gave an appropriate hint in the 'dept' field.

                  But no, nobody is discussing the actually source material and everybody is simply concentrating on the recent tax bill that has now passed into law, with the predictable outcome we see here.

                  Here was a chance to look at a scientific'ish paper (well, I must admit that it is a psychological paper) and dissect it, and subsequently to subject it to some scientific analysis. That didn't happen, but don't blame the messenger.

                  --
                  It's always my fault...
                  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @05:58AM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @05:58AM (#606666)

                    It was the usual nonsense. A person in a disreputable field of study concocts something to fit preconceived notions. This satisfies a need for the writer.

                    That need could be the satisfaction of feeling superior over one's foes. The enemy is mentally ill!. That need could be virtue signalling. That need could be just pumping out another low-value publication to satisfy a requirement for tenure, matriculation, etc.

                    Had they not started with such a bias, they might have paid attention to the fact that liberals tend to suffer from depression. Flipping that around, Trump voters are less often depressed.

                    They could have also described the Trump voter attributes using positive terminology. All of the terminology was disparaging. They could have described the attributes of non-Trump voters with disparaging terms.

                    The bias is severe. I wonder if they even know.

                    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @08:38AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @08:38AM (#606715)

                      They could have also described the Trump voter attributes using positive terminology. All of the terminology was disparaging.

                      Wot? Seriously? You want scientists to LIE? What kind of, oh, a Trump voter.... Nice Trump voter. Good Trump voter. {reaches around behind self while backing away, feeling for a large stick or 2x4} You are the Greatest Trump voter, ever!

                    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 07, @02:06PM

                      by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @02:06PM (#606787) Journal

                      I read the paper. It's a weak modern attempt to reprise The Mind of Adolf Hitler. As a work in the social sciences, it distinctly lacks rigor and was composed to stigmatize voters who supported Trump. There's no deeper quantitative analysis of causality producing similar trends across very different countries. Even a moderately intelligent person with no background in quantitative methods or data analysis could have crafted a better hypothesis than these authors did.

                      For example, a serious researcher could have explored a number of different explanatory variables like the velocity of demographic change, of monetary policy, of trade agreements, of shifts in the composition of economies, of indices of corruption and democracy. All they limply threw out was maybe automation has something to do with it. And, oh yeah yeah maybe some of the people are pissed they lost their well-paying jobs in manufacturing because CEOs and Wall Street banks wanted to earn a quick windfall for themselves with outsourcing.

                      But they didn't do any of that blindingly obvious analysis because their purpose is not to understand, but to undermine the intellectual legitimacy of a political phenomenon they don't personally like. Poor show, professor, poor show.

                      --
                      Washington DC delenda est.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @09:50PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @09:50PM (#607453)

                    That's not correct either.
                    Here's how these things work:

                    A simple majority of the House and the Senate both vote Yes on the SAME bill.
                    The president signs that bill within 10 days and it then becomes law.

                    Alternately, the president does -not- sign the bill and a supermajority of each chamber votes Yes again and it then becomes law.

                    Now, if the bill that is passed in each chamber is NOT THE SAME, a committee is appointed to resolve the differences and come up with a compromise bill so that THAT can be voted on.
                    THAT is where things stand now on this #GOPTaxScam.

                    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

              • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:30AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:30AM (#606675)

                Oh, hi, jmorris.

                I see you are still capable of mouth foaming; you're just a bit shy today, aren't you? Probably too soon after you took your medication and there's still a trace of rationality in you.

                Well, don't you mind it, keep going. Your rambling is always delicious for those of us who acquired the taste.

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday December 07, @04:01AM (4 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @04:01AM (#606628)

            It would really piss me off though. Troll the shit out of me is what it would do. I'd be a sputtering ball of rage. Promise.

            (whoooo... shivering)

            Oh, come on now. You are not one of those precious snowflakes that cannot take it like a man, are you? (even larger grin)

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @04:06AM (3 children)

              Absolutely. It would shatter my fragile little psyche. Please don't do it.

              --
              Save Ferris!
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:37AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:37AM (#606701)

                Truly the saddest thing about a broken mind is that the mind itself is too broken to be cognizant of its own condition. Dunning-Kruger effect applied to insanity. All the most crazy people think that they are perfectly sane! We have several fine examples right here on SoylentNews, unfortunately. TMB, your psyche is already broken. Your "tough guy" act is only confirming the diagnosis. Seek professional help, or a college education, as soon as possible.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:31AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:31AM (#606766)

                  Oooh, ooh! Do me next, Internet Doc!

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:12PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:12PM (#606910)

                    Well you're obviously of very low intellectual capability, turning to an Internet Doctor? I recommend you start over at, say, 3rd grade.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @02:47AM (14 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @02:47AM (#606580)

        The top tax bracket gets no cut at all

        I don't know what you think you were reading but it wasn't the tax bill that was voted on. All of the tax brackets, at least in the short term, get cuts. What makes the top bracket different is those cuts don't expire. The tax cuts on the rest of the brackets expire, starting with the second from the top and working down over time such that the lowest bracket's cuts last the longest. After expiration the tax rate goes up for each of the brackets (except the top which doesn't expire).

        Now, the top tax bracket's cuts may be the smallest, but they're permanent. Everyone else's tax cuts are offset by a later increase that takes the money back (and then some) after 5-10 years. This tax bill is a tax cut for the .01% and a tax increase for you and everyone else reading this site. If you think you're actually going to have more money in your pocket in the long run because of this bill you're either a multi-billionaire or a clueless idiot.

        I really don't want to hear about one guy's sexual misbehavior on one side when the other side is having a fire sale on child molestation, sexual assault, and sexual harassment.

        Oh look, more whataboutism. Are you gonna start screaming about buttery males next? The only problem with your particular whataboutism is it could be twisted both ways. Watch:

        "I really don't want to hear about one guy's sexual misbehavior on [the Republican] side when the [Democrat] side is having a fire sale on child molestation, sexual assault, and sexual harassment." That fits with current events.

        "I really don't want to hear about one guy's sexual misbehavior on the [Democrat] side when the [Republican] side is having a fire sale on child molestation, sexual assault, and sexual harassment." That also fits with current events. Actually, that fits better than the other way around because the Democrats are at least trying (but failing, sadly) to clean up their mess. The Republicans are doubling down on their child sexual predators. Trump himself has come right out and said a known pedophile is preferable to a "liberal" or a "Democrat." (Makes me wonder if some of the illegible scribbles in that insult of a tax bill do away with age of consent laws, but I digress...)

        The sexual predator problem isn't a Democrat problem. The sexual predator problem isn't a Republican problem. The sexual predator problem is a wealthy piece of shit problem. These shit stains commit mass sexual harassment and sexual assault because it has been proven time and time again that they are somehow above the law simply because they are wealthy. Roy Moore creeps in a mall and they put up "watch out for the creep" signs like it's all a big joke. If you or I did the same exact thing we'd have three hots and a cot in a place a great distance from the mall.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @03:34AM (13 children)

          The sexual predator problem isn't a Democrat problem. The sexual predator problem isn't a Republican problem. The sexual predator problem is a wealthy piece of shit problem.

          Really? You don't think a ratio of double digits to one on which party they're coming from shows any correlation whatsoever? You're not that big on the science, are you?

          I don't know what you think you were reading but it wasn't the tax bill that was voted on.

          The House bill had no change to the rate of the top tax bracket last I read it. If it's changed since then or if you're thinking of the Senate bill, that's another story entirely.

          If you think you're actually going to have more money in your pocket in the long run because of this bill you're either a multi-billionaire or a clueless idiot.

          I not only think I will, I flat out know I will. I'm not fool enough to decide live my life paycheck to paycheck. Money I have now is and will always be more valuable than money I'll earn in the future. If you can't figure out why, that's your problem.

          --
          Save Ferris!
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @05:08AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @05:08AM (#606649)

            I not only think I will, I flat out know I will. I'm not fool enough to decide live my life paycheck to paycheck. Money I have now is and will always be more valuable than money I'll earn in the future. If you can't figure out why, that's your problem.

            There is absolutely nothing in that statement that comes anywhere close to being a response to the part of my post you quoted. Here, let me emphasize the relevant part of my post since you obviously lack the reading comprehension to find it yourself:

            "If you think you're actually going to have more money in your pocket in the long run because of this bill you're either a multi-billionaire or a clueless idiot."

            So, tell me, what part of that bill will put more money in your pocket in the long run? By long run I mean 10-15 years out, after all the tax cuts have expired. Please, explain it to me.

            Or are you just another clueless idiot?

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Thursday December 07, @05:08AM (11 children)

            by Whoever (4524) on Thursday December 07, @05:08AM (#606650)

            Really? You don't think a ratio of double digits to one on which party they're coming from shows any correlation whatsoever? You're not that big on the science, are you?

            No, all it shows is that Republicans don't care about sexual abuse.

            Exhibit No. 1: Trump -- pussy-grabber in chief.

            • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:01AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:01AM (#606669)

              The important words were "they let you", which is consent.

              FYI, sometimes women like it when you grab them by the pussy.

              • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Thursday December 07, @01:40PM

                by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @01:40PM (#606781)

                lol so you expect he’d just come out and say he forced himself onto women?

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Sulla on Thursday December 07, @06:35AM (1 child)

              by Sulla (5173) on Thursday December 07, @06:35AM (#606677) Journal

              Interesting how with everyone working against him and trying to find every little flaw they have only found success in eating their own.

              • (Score: 0, Troll) by Sulla on Thursday December 07, @05:32PM

                by Sulla (5173) on Thursday December 07, @05:32PM (#606881) Journal

                Truth hurts

                Senator Al Franken
                Representative John Conyers
                Matt Lauer

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 07, @02:13PM (5 children)

              by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @02:13PM (#606791) Journal

              No, all it shows is that Republicans don't care about sexual abuse.

              Exhibit No. 1: Trump -- pussy-grabber in chief.

              Have you not been paying attention to the march of the headlines these past two months at all? Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Al Franken, Kevin Spacey, NPR producers, etc etc. At this point to even cast these behaviors as the purview of one party or another is remarkably blinkered. You mean this is the first time a person who takes sexual liberties with women has sat in the Oval Office? Seriously? Ever hear of Bill Clinton?

              Sexual harassment and abuse are endemic to people in positions of power and privilege, no matter what political or cultural label they might fly under. That is what has been laid bare. Don't willfully miscontrue it as anything else or you will be an agent trying to defeat this society-wide catharsis and preserve the status quo where this abuse continues, because "it's only other guys, the bad ones, who do it."

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 07, @06:37PM (4 children)

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday December 07, @06:37PM (#606931) Journal

                Have you not been paying attention to the march of the headlines these past two months at all?

                Weinstein - Fired and currently being sued
                Matt Lauer - Fired
                Al Franken - Probably resigning today
                Kevin Spacey - Fired
                NPR producers - Fired

                Meanwhile...

                Trump - Crickets...
                Moore - Crickets...

                There is a very clear difference there you are refusing to see.

                • (Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 07, @07:04PM (2 children)

                  by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @07:04PM (#606944) Journal

                  After decades and decades of condoning it? Hell, Democrats ran the lady who ran the bimbo squad for her husband's presidency for president herself last year. They still defend those POS'es.

                  There's no moral high ground there at all. It's simple, "Take the beam out of your own eye" dynamics. It's pure "our" team vs. "their" team.

                  The Democrats would have a leg to stand on if they had cleared out the Clinton cronies from the corrupt DNC, called for Hillary and Bill to be prosecuted, and had gone after Conyers and Franken and all the others they've all know about for years on their own instead of being dragged into it, but they didn't. Instead, they doubled down on everything that's wrong there.

                  I've actually read headlines on the Huffington Post like, "The case for Hillary in 2020" as recently as last week. That's how clueless the media and the DNC still are.

                  --
                  Washington DC delenda est.
                  • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 07, @07:10PM (1 child)

                    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday December 07, @07:10PM (#606946) Journal

                    Child molestation is totally fine because Clinton. Got it.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @05:23PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @05:23PM (#607277)

                      I think the Trump presidency is slowly eroding Phoenix666's mind.

                • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday December 08, @02:24AM

                  by Reziac (2489) on Friday December 08, @02:24AM (#607069) Homepage

                  No, no, Mr.Franken, please don't resign... we LIKE having a discredited and therefore powerless dude warming a (D) chair...

            • (Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 08, @06:33PM

              by arcz (4501) on Friday December 08, @06:33PM (#607330) Journal

              I think that it has more to do with the fact that they care less about his sexual behavior than they care about issues.
              As a Trump over Hillary supporter, I found that Donald Trump's positions (a positive) to be more important than his sexual behavior (a negative).
              Hence, I supported Donald Trump even though I don't personally like the guy, because I supported him on more of the issues. That doesn't mean I don't care about sexual abuse, I do, but I cared about it less than:
              1. Protecting free speech, including workplace speech.
              2. Protecting due process, including in sexual harassment/sexual offense related cases.
              3. Restoring the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

              My main reason for supporting Donald Trump was the fact that I don't like the concept of students being expelled from University based on only a preponderance of evidence. I thought that a republican appointed Supreme Court judge would be more likely to overrule that terrible precedent, hence I supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Does anyone really care who the president is after all?

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:12AM (#606685)

        C) I really don't want to hear about one guy's sexual misbehavior on one side when the other side is having a fire sale on child molestation, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. You might as well be bitching about a jay walker while wearing an I ❤ Stalin t-shirt.

        "The other side", geez, this is why America is in the shitter and swirling fast, there are no mother fucking sides, when climate change starts boiling the oceans we all die bitch, when trump nukes korea, we all die bitch... geezsus fuckng christ, other side your ass...

        As far as sexual harassment accusations against "liberal/democrats" at least they have the balls to own up to their actions. Trump, Moore, O'Reilly, et al. conservatives deny, deny, deny any and all wrongdoing, even when it's obvious they are guilty, pussys.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @05:12PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @05:12PM (#606870)

        C is false; you cannot condone the negative activities of your tribe by saying the bad guys do it too!

        That makes you a bad guy

        The democrats seem to be taking the high road in being more forceful about getting their own bad guys to resign. Trump has instead endorse Moore and his tribe has followed suit.

        • (Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 08, @06:25PM

          by arcz (4501) on Friday December 08, @06:25PM (#607322) Journal

          It's more important what a politician will vote for than what he does. A politician impacts a lot more people through his votes than he does interacting with people directly.
          This leads us to the inevitable conclusion: The issues (votes) are more important than the personal integrity of the politician. This is also why corrupt people can continue to remain politicians in general, people don't care about the corruption as long as the politician votes the way they want him/her to.
          In a nutshell, this is why Donald Trump won the election, a person far less "refined" than Hillary Clinton, but more likely to bring the country in the direction that voters want.
          Comments about "pussy" and whatnot didn't have a significant effect on the vote because Donald Trump never said he would support any particular anti-woman legislation, and most "anti-woman" legislation is just egalitarian or indirect impacts.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:28PM (#606922)

        Everyone has beaten you to death over your 3 items, a very sad day.

        When one champion of truth dares to stand up and is knocked down? Well we might as well organize the next Million Man march! FOR THE GUZZARD!

        We'll make this right TMB, just you wait and see. These hateful turds will rue the day they dared call you out on your bullshit.

    • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday December 07, @02:15AM

      by Snotnose (1623) on Thursday December 07, @02:15AM (#606559)

      Oh thank god. I just defended Trump's making Jerusalem something important on another site, I'm 3 sheets to the wind, and, yeah, thank god it's not something I said recently. Something I said an hour ago? I'll see you in the morning with all facilities intact.

      Drunk me can't figure out how you can argue my point

        unless you're drinking the kool aid

        thirsty?

(1) 2 3