Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

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.
  • (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.

    --
    We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Flamebait=1, Troll=2, Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Disagree=1, Touché=1, Total=9
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (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: 1, Redundant) by driverless on Thursday December 07, @02:14AM

      by driverless (4770) on Thursday December 07, @02:14AM (#606558)

      Yeah, in one of these [webnode.nl].

  • (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.

      --
      We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
      • (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?

          --
          We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
          • (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.

              --
              We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
              • (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) Subscriber Badge 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) Subscriber Badge 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.

          --
          We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
          • (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.

              --
              We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
              • (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) Subscriber Badge 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) Subscriber Badge 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) Subscriber Badge 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.

      --
      We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
      • (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.

        --
        #freearistarchus!!!
        • (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.

            --
            We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
            • (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.

          --
          We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
          • (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.

      --
      We've got #BieberFever [soylentnews.org]!
      • (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) Subscriber Badge 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.

          --
          I post without karma bonus, you should too
          • (Score: 0, Troll) by Sulla on Thursday December 07, @05:32PM

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

            Truth hurts

            Senator Al Franken
            Representative John Conyers
            Matt Lauer

            --
            I post without karma bonus, you should too
        • (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.