ex-President Trump

as if

Yeah. Give me a set of rules and facts and I'm capable of providing the output to the best of my abilities straight logic gate style. 1 plus 1 is 2, (A or Not A) is true, Trump won the 2016 election etc. Cultural conservatives have lost the ability to do that. Or more accurately, modern conservatism is selecting for people that can't do that.

What would you say if I said the exact same thing ?

Dude. The only output you are capable of providing is bullshit. Lots of it.

Yeah sure we have to vote democrat so that we can fight inflation with higher deficits because that's the logical gate conclusion, modern conservatism that denies that folly is just not selected for the modern world.

Possibly the best ever elected in a democracy yes, policy wise.

For their time, Thatcher and Reagan were truly awesome but Milei is just better if we remove the time capsule constrain

You probably don't understand that the guy recused himself from the left (he hated Berlusconi).

That's why I am saying chapeau to him, because I fully don't expect everyone who deeply dislike trump to recuse himself even if he obviously should by law.

The vast majority of people who ever said they hate Trump should self exclude themselves by law and you know that. Everyone harboring significant negative emotions about anything trump related should self exclude themselves.

Anyone thinking "getting them by the pussy" was an outrageous statement, should self exclude. And so on

For the vast majority of people, they can't be impartial if they have feelings on something. You need either to be on the spectrum or trained deeply for that to be the case. Normal people are NOT impartial when they care about something, basically all scientifical literature about behavioral propensities confirms this, and you know that.

None of them are going to be impartial. Similarly to unconcious racial bias, they are all going to suffer from it.

Ironically one of the key steps to overcoming unconcious bias is to acknowledge it and those people are excluded.

still at least it only hurts a profoundly stupid and unjust process.

the vast majority of republican administrations love crime...

There isn't a right way to put a political national leader to trial. Various countries tried various ways, they all suck for one reason or another.

Check south Korea where 3 of the last 4 presidents were indicted, and the last one was the prosecutor of the previous one lol.

USA had the best response in history when Nixon got pardoned, but I guess that kind of exceptionally intelligent option isn't on the table anymore and I understand why

by #Thinman P

the vast majority of republican administrations love crime...

I was just dropping my daughter off and learned an interesting stat. This was on a top podcast, from a psychologist who has written about the history of violence on the left and the right (how in topic to this thread today 😀 ). They studied violence in America over the last 100 years.

When Republican presidents were elected, violent crime went up over 2x the normal average.

When Democratic presidents were elected, violent crime went down over 1/2 the norm.

Probably no correlation though and just randomness.

Most probably, just completely made up data by some random person

I tend to listen to highly educated people on podcasts. People who are actually learned, measured, and can sort through their biases and making logical arguments.

I'll see if I can find a link... this is all I could find off the top.

https://www.quora.com/Historically-viewe...

Likewise, I keep the company of highly educated people.

It's very tricky but sometimes it has to be done.

The lol aspects of the justice system is nothign to do with who is on trial. It usually greatly benefits the rich and powerful but trump is excessively ridiculous.

Your link doesn't in any way confirm the completely insane claim of 2x / x0.5 you made before.

But I mean it has been clear from your first post here since you arrived lately, waste of time to argue on anything, my fault

Ok, here's the snippet:

“My colleagues and I did a study about 10 years ago looking at the two different parties in the United States — not in terms of ideology or policies but purely in terms of violent death rates — and, astonishingly, we found that over a 110-year period, almost without exception, whenever there was a Republican president who was elected, the murder and suicide rates would double, and whenever there was a Democratic president elected the murder and suicide rates would halve.” - Bandy X. Lee, MD.

She added that people don’t generally notice this because there’s a roughly 2-year time-lag between elections and the time the increases or decreases in suicide and homicide measurably set in.

And, she said, it wasn’t just the economic policies of the parties that was driving the violence; it was primarily how they talked about America and thus caused us to think about ourselves and each other:

“We controlled for changes in the economy such as unemployment rates or GDP and so it was basically not related to their economic policies, although their economic policies quite often diverged as well…

“Whenever Democrats are elected, we tend to do well, to prosper not only in terms of unemployment but also in terms of rising GDP, but [we] also see a change in violent death rates, so that showed that there was not just an ideological difference or a policy driven difference, but a difference based on whatever the party brings, whether it's rhetoric or public perception. The party alone made the difference in violence rates.”

Just make an intelligent argument... but if you say things like you think Nazi's are liberal, and 99% of America is liberal, you're not going to get a serious response from anyone intelligent.

I said 99% of political violence was from the left since 1946. There was basically no rightwing political violence. The left had literally thousands of episodes of organized group violence.

I was countered by another poster that a lot of it was violence against property. Yes. Still violence.

When was it the last time thousands of rightwing people caused a riot? Because we literally only have Jan 6 in almost 80 years.

BLM alone caused more than 100 riots.

Students right now protesting against Jews are causing several. Students caused many in the last 80 years, and each and every one of it was a leftist violent protest/riot. Each and every one.

Yet you guys think it's all fine because you agree with the motivations.

AND you deny it happened as well, because admitting you are fully pro violence for your causes doesn't look good (and it's fully illegal).

That's what the left is. Exceptionally violent and antidemocratic yet so mischievous as to deny the very violence they promote every day is happening

Do you have the same skepticism that people who love Trump will say that they are too biased to serve on a jury?

Right. And in order to reach that sort of conclusion, you have to come up with some definition of leftist that is broad enough to capture the Timothy McVeighs of the world.

So if the average number of violent crimes in the United States over the last 100 years is X per 100,000, you are saying that the average during Republican administrations was something like 2X per 100,000, and .5x per 100,000 during Democratic administrations?

That seems highly unlikely to me because crime rates simply aren't that volatile. (Also, it would be a mathematical impossibility if there were an equal number of Republican and Democratic administrations.)

To be fair I’m certain this guy’s random statistics of leftist violence since 1946 will include links of things that happened in the UK or something

I don't agree with this statement.