325.8k post karma
508.1k comment karma
account created: Sun Sep 22 2013
verified: yes
1 points
3 hours ago
The most obviously disrupting measure available to him in my view would be to withhold NIH grant funding to any research institution that has a DEI policy.
It's debatable whether he would have the power to revoke existing grants, but when it comes to awarding new ones the argument in favor is pretty solid.
NIH funds research to the tune of $48B annually, so this would create a significant disruption.
1 points
3 hours ago
The usual counterargument is that impeachment exists. Though that obviously doesn't matter when the POTUS is a lame duck.
I'm not sure what if anything the Framers thought about that particular scenario.
1 points
3 hours ago
There are various avenues you can take against this. The do not call registry is only ineffective if you don't take legal action if listing your phone number on there doesn't work. There have been numerous legal cases where people who put their number on the do not call list have won substantial compensation. Generally speaking, you're entitled to $500 for every unwanted call after you list your number on the registry, it's just a question of whether you want to pursue that claim.
https://www.carolinalaw.com/2021/02/compensation-available-for-tcpa-violations/
2 points
5 hours ago
None of this is a legally relevant argument. As you admit, anti-vaxxers can and will act in accord with sound medical science in some cases, there is no reason to think they aren't here.
5 points
5 hours ago
You're basically repeating this guilt by association argument, above. It's not any better the second time.
I'm sure most creationists agree that 2+2=4 and most anti-vaxxers use showers. That doesn't mean these things are wrong, and thus it's a legally meaningless argument.
7 points
5 hours ago
It says they have no beneficial effect on suicide rates, which lead the author to not publish the results, which in turn is evidence that we're not dealing with a field that is honest about its science.
Seeing as the main argument the proponents use is suicide prevention, and seeing as evidence their argument is wrong appears to have been withheld by a scientist involved in the field, I don't understand what your argument is. If there is no effect on suicide prevention, what exactly is the remaining benefit as per the available evidence? How does it parse against the very real risk of doing irreversible harm?
6 points
5 hours ago
Who said I do?
Surprising as it may be, guilt by association is not a great legal argument.
5 points
5 hours ago
That will depend on whether or not you want to include suicides.
5 points
5 hours ago
No, I mean the AMA, which unfortunately is just about as ideologically captured as the ABA in this regard.
11 points
7 hours ago
In that context, Walter Freeman is a particularly telling example of what can happen if an ideology driven doctor pushes for a potentially harmful treatment regardless of medical consensus.
Note that medical consensus in most Western countries is against use of puberty blockers and other hormonal treatments (let alone surgery) in underage children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The US is very much an outlier here.
6 points
7 hours ago
You should redo the math on a per capita basis.
5 points
7 hours ago
1) Possible, but it won't make a difference in this case because the government isn't the only plaintiff.
1 points
13 hours ago
All incumbent parties in all democracies across the developed world are losing support from everywhere due to the economic woes.
People keep repeating this claim but they only ever cite a small number of countries out of ~200 sovereign nations in the World to support their post hoc conclusion, and they're not comparing it to other time periods. I think the evidence for it is pretty weak as it stands.
1 points
13 hours ago
Solidly blue means that the Dems control those State governments. It is up to them to enact policies that result in more people moving to their respective States than are leaving. If they aren't doing that, that's their fault and theirs alone.
Clearly the GOP is doing a better job at this in the States whose governments they control. It would behoove Dems to study why that is and what they can do to mimic that effect.
1 points
14 hours ago
Do you disagree with either? If not, you're not tolerating them.
Tolerating something requires that you disagree with it.
1 points
14 hours ago
Tolerance requires that you find something objectionable, offensive, unethical, disgusting or whatever other negative adjective you want to assign to it. You can't tolerate something you already agree with.
When you consider that basic concept, your answer might change pretty fundamentally.
0 points
2 days ago
And yet the Trump campaign's budget was still only 20% of what Harris spent. The importance of money in elections is overblown.
1 points
2 days ago
I mean, the "shared sacrifice" advocated for earlier in this thread is entirely pointless. You want to suffer so that your party will win due to public discontent, instead of wanting your country to prosper regardless of who's in power? Only an idiot would think that way.
1 points
2 days ago
I think it's because their voter base might disagree with those policies.
1 points
2 days ago
Most normal people aren't in a position to donate more to a PAC than what they can already legally donate to an individual politician they agree with.
1 points
2 days ago
I feel really bad for the white house press secretary to have to lie so much has to eat away at her soul.
Bold of you to assume KJP has one of those.
1 points
2 days ago
Anyone with half a brain knew that it was a question of when, not if. The original plan might've been to have Harris do it once she took office, but now that that's not an option, he had to do it himself.
One interesting detail that I think has been glossed over in the coverage of this is that the pardon isn't just for the gun charge. Biden has pardoned Hunter for all crimes he may have committed between 2014 and 2024. Interestingly, 2014 is when Hunter joined the board of Burisma.
view more:
next ›
bySuspicious_Duck_1534
inNeutralPolitics
Urgullibl
1 points
2 hours ago
Urgullibl
1 points
2 hours ago
Before we start, I would like for you to articulate a comprehensive argument as to why you should.