Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday December 07 2017, @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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:12AM (37 children)

    by NewNic (6420) on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:12AM (#606555) Journal

    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.

    --
    Conservatives: Make my portion of the pie a larger proportion of the total. Liberals: Increase the size of the pie.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Informative=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07 2017, @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.

    --
    Cobra Kai
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:58AM (18 children)

      by c0lo (156) on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @03:15AM (13 children)

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

        --
        Cobra Kai
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:37AM (7 children)

          by c0lo (156) on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @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.

            --
            Cobra Kai
            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:36AM

              by c0lo (156) on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @05:31AM

              by Demena (5637) on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @06:50AM (2 children)

              by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @07:24AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @07:29AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @02:02AM

              by c0lo (156) on Friday December 08 2017, @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 2017, @05:17AM (4 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:17AM (#606654) Journal

          > 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.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:47AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @07:31AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @08:43PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08 2017, @08:43PM (#607404) Journal

                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...

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:07PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @12:18AM (3 children)

        by GreatOutdoors (6408) on Friday December 08 2017, @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 2017, @02:32AM (2 children)

          by c0lo (156) on Friday December 08 2017, @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 2017, @07:46AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @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 2017, @09:20AM

              by c0lo (156) on Friday December 08 2017, @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 2017, @03:04AM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @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.

        --
        Cobra Kai
        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:33AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @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.

            --
            Cobra Kai
            • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday December 07 2017, @08:39AM

              by c0lo (156) on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @05:17PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @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 2017, @07:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @03:25AM (6 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @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!"

      --
      Hawking believes that alien life forms will likely be simple and primitive, or, as they’re known on Earth, Democrats.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:45AM (5 children)

        by c0lo (156) on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @04:03AM (3 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:03AM (#606629) Journal

          Bingo. Thank you for clarification.

          --
          Hawking believes that alien life forms will likely be simple and primitive, or, as they’re known on Earth, Democrats.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:19AM (2 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:19AM (#606655) Journal

            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.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:27PM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @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.

              --
              Hawking believes that alien life forms will likely be simple and primitive, or, as they’re known on Earth, Democrats.
              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 08 2017, @08:45PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08 2017, @08:45PM (#607408) Journal

                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.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:38PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @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 2017, @04:23AM (1 child)

      by NewNic (6420) on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:23AM (#606639) Journal

      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.

      --
      Conservatives: Make my portion of the pie a larger proportion of the total. Liberals: Increase the size of the pie.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:22AM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:22AM (#606656) Journal

        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!"

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @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.