Ten oz

I am not implying it is predictive of anything. Just that its interest. Clinton, Bush, Obama are the last 3 Presidents to consecutively all serve out 2 full terms since Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson left office in 1921. So it would be unique in that respect if Trump were to get another term. It is possible that the streak of consecutive 2 term presidents says something about the nature of partisanship and media politcal advocacy in modern politics. If Nixon was POTUS today I don't think there is a chance Watergate would be enough to force him out of office. Especially if Nixon has devoted cable news pundits making his defense around the clock and social media.To that point had Bill Clinton been POTUS in Nixon's day such a public lie as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" would probably have resulted in his removal from office. I also don't think Bush could have survived 2 questionable elections where it was broadly suspected his campaign cheated. The threshold to get rid of a Presidents seems far greater today. So much so I have no idea what will happen if Trump declares victory in November, claims the vote in various swing states is wrong, and just refuses to leave. Yeah, just an additional thought I had after we (StringJunky and I) cleared up who the last incumbent to lose was

^^^^Which is why I said "did not complete 2 full terms". JFK was killed, LBJ didn't run for what would've been his 2nd elected term, and Nixon resigned. Ford, Carter, Bush lost re-election. That makes 6 since WW2 that failed to serve 2 full terms.

6 of the last 10 president did not complete 2 full terms. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all completing 2 full is actually an unusual streak. One has to go back a hundred years to find another.

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” - James Mattis (Trump's appointed former Sec of Defense.) “I don’t think he’s fit for office. I don’t think he has the competence to carry out the job,” - John Bolton (Trump's appointed National Security Advisor) “a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says [what’s on his mind.]” - Rex Tillerson (Trump's Appointed Sec of State). Trump's own cabinet has rejected him. Trump is on his 4th National Security Advisor, 3rd Chief of Staff, 2nd Attorney General, 2nd Sec State, is shopping for a 3rd Sec of DHS, etc, etc in just 3yrs in office. Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen named Trump as a co-conspirator in felons. Mitt Romney, former Republican nominee for President, voted to impeach Trump. It isn't even partisan to say Trump is criminally corrupt. Republicans say it. Trump's own staff says it. It is really disgusting situation. One of the things I like so much about Biden selecting Harris as his running mate is that I feel it singles a desire/willingness to hold people accountable. Nothing like this has been done before. Nixon was guilt of a single crime (at least far as the public was concerned) and resigned. The follow admin really didn't need to do much of an extensive dive into things. With Trump there is a myriad of situation which will require investigation. Everything the govt has entered into under Trump needs to be looked at through a new lens. Weapons deal with Saudi Arabia w/khashoggi killing, Favorable govt contracts to allies, Chinese patents to Trump family members & associates, insider trading, intelligence sharing with Russia, etc, etc, etc. Then there is just the partisan political nonsense where Republicans ignored congressional authority, obstructed federal investigations, misappropriated funds, etc, etc. Harris knows the law and it have to bring all her experience to bare navigating between which things should be dealt with as policy changes via Congress, executive authority, or referred to the Attorney Generals office. Bush lost as an incumbent in 1992. That was just 28yrs ago. Not 40yrs ago.

Republicans lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 national elections. Following the SCOTUS decision on Shelby County vs Holder in 2014 Republicans have massively ramped up voter disenfranchisement efforts. Courts have ruled against many of the new voting practices in FL, GA, SC, WI, etc. It is a game of whack-O-mole though. Soon as a ruling come down new ways to disenfranchise come and the battle starts again. Elections don't get do-overs either. So even when it is decided a state had an unlawful system in place during a previous election the law is just changed moving forward. Democrats do not need to appeal to some new unlikely voting block of people. Democrats already receive more votes. Democrats demonstratively (polls, voter registration, voting history, etc) have more support. The issue is fair elections. The President openly admits he is blocking Postal Service funding to weakening ability of successful mail in voting. Zero attempts are being made to keep that a secret or spin it as being about anything else. Despite a referendum in FL that people overwhelming supported to get a million people their voting rights back State officials are still fighting it in court. Who knows what percentage will actually get to vote in Nov in FL. That's game. That (voter disenfranchisement) is what will determine the outcome in many localities and thus the electoral college. Trump isn't wasting one second of his time attempting to broaden his appeal, reach out to new groups of voters, and far as I can tell doesn't even have stated plans for what he'd do if given 4 more years. Joe Biden will win the popular vote. Every knows that. Democrats have more support. The electoral game is county by county in FL, GA, MI, OH, PA, and WI. Sabotaging mail in voting in Philly and Tampa, limiting polling locations creating 8hr long lines in Milwaukee & Cleveland, drafting confusing ballots, changing registration deadlines, limiting early voting, etc, etc is how Republicans plan to win. Democrats need people on the ground shining light on local requires and ensuring everyone understands how and where to vote. Democrats already have more supporters. Democrats don't need to run around flip over rocks looking for more. Not if their votes will wind up in the trash anyway. Democrats need to work to best ensure the voters they have get their votes counted.

This doesn't have to be off topic. The Majority of people in the nation support gun reform, Here. However it continues not to happen. Do you feel there could be a connection between the way Representation has been proportioned and the lack of responsiveness to what people broadly support? I pointed out that much has changed. I didn't say you specifically advocated for change

To your point the 19th amendment which gave Women the right was passed in 1919. That was several years after The 1911 House Reappointment Act which was used as the ceiling for House members. Also 1911 was 5 decades before the Voting rights act was passed. A lot has changed.

I think it gives national parties greater influence. Out of 435 seat only about 80 are considered competitive. This forces those interested in running to conform to which ever major party owns their region's seats. If one were born and raised in Idaho and has ambitions of representing their state they would just about have to become Republican. Both House Reps and Senators are Republicans and no one is winning one of those seats without the endorsement of the Republican party. The Republican primaries for those seats are good as the actual election. Yet Ada County ,capital region of Idaho and the most populated county (480k), isn't partisan as the State. Trump won Idaho by 32 points but only won Ada County by 8 points. Boise has a Democrat as Mayor. There are hundreds of thousands on people in Idaho who are open and or want more diverse representation but won't get it. Candidates in ID will continue pandering to the national party. Same applies the opposite way in Democratic controlled regions. It is ironic to me because those point of allowing States control over their own districting and to have House members in the first place was to enforce an amount of sovereignty. Give States the independence to self govern. The opposite has happened. Huge portions of the map are under national party rule. I feel like increasing the number of seats and lowering the constituent to Rep. ratio would help but am not entirely sure. "Two-thirds of our population lives in the top 100 metropolitan areas, and 84 percent of Americans live in all 363 metros. Being in a metro means being tied to someplace else; the Census Bureau defines metropolitan areas as a city of 50,000 or more, plus the adjacent counties that have close social and economic ties to the urban core. " Here There are only 15 cities in the U.S. with at least 750k people. Metro areas include associated cities and town. There are 74 Metros in the nation with at least 750k people. The majority of the population lives in a metro region but not necessarily in an individual location with at least 750k people. So on the surface the ratio doesn't seem that bad. Perhaps in places like NYC and the San Francisco Bay Area where Reps have small geographical areas do to population density it works well. What about States that only have a single Rep like AK, MT, ND, SD, and WY. Surely the needs of people in a fairly well populated city like Anchorage AK (400k) are different than that more isolated populations in AK like Nome (4k)? Along those lines there are several states that do not contain a single metro area with at least 750k. Meaning all those regions House reps are responsible for numerous independent localities.

"Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons." Here The 1911 House Reappointment Act increased "membership of the House from 391 to 433, with provisions to add two more Members when New Mexico and Arizona became states." Here The 1911 House Reappointment Act was the last time the number of House members has been expanded. At that time there was roughly a House Representative per 200k citizens. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the number of House representatives at the size outline in by the 1911 Act, 435 members. Today the number of citizens is about 750k per House representative with the largest District being nearly 900k and the smallest being 120k. Numbers I do not think Politicians imagined back in 1929 or if they did I imagine they assumed a new Apportionment Act would be passed to address the growth. What has been the impact on limiting House members and should Congress consider a repeal? I think it enabled more aggressive gerrymandering, fed partisanship, limited independent Candidates, and diminish the strength of the House of Representatives. I am curious what impacts (pro or con) members think followed the Act, whether or not it should be repealed, and if repealed what should replace it. I vaguely recall a conversation about this here a couple years. I don't remember if it had its own thread. So I apologizes if this is a redundant thread.

Provided it relates to Kamala Harris, Biden's VP selection process, or the roles associated with VP it isn't off topic. I think what thery're signaling is an inability to continue the discussion without venturing into territory that might be labelled as sexist.Vague analogies about societal expectations among some unidentified portions of the population provides a safe distance to launch problematic observations from. It will be interesting to see if conversation about Harris evolves beyond her gender. If the keys to election victory are eventually said to be policy related rather than just pageantry.

Clinton wore an entirely Red Suit to a debate. You're attempting to establish a cultural norm which doesn't exist. It is similar to when Obama was attacked for wearing a Tan suit. The insistence was that it was un-presidential to wear anything other than a dark colored suit. Of course Reagan, Ford, JFK, and others had also worn Tan suits. It wasn't really a first and no such norm existed. Only the most egregious cases are prosecuted. Even in the U.S., where we have more prison inmates than any other nation, there isn't a single person in prison for gender discrimination. 'He said she said' exists in our popular lexicon for a reason. There is no equivalent saying for stealing. Those who steal are called thieves and prisons has plenty of them. Meanwhile people online debated endlessly on Brett Kavanaugh's behalf citing 'he said she said' as a form of plausible deniability.

Difference being that there are clear, well established, and regularly enforced laws against stealing. It is even biblical "thou shall not steal" for those so inclined. Everyone is able to identify it and very few ever attempt to make light of it. Stealing is unambiguous in most modern cultures. If Biden, Harris, Pence, or nearly any politician were caught stealing Phi's wallet it would end their political career. The overwhelming majority of even their own most partisan supporters would reject that behavior.

Numerous people from Trump's 16" campaign are felons today Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Gates, Papadopoulos, etc. Trump was named by the guilt parties as a co-conspirator on some of those charges. National Intelligence, even the people Trump appointed, have confirmed Russia interfered to help Trump in 16' and is doing it again now. Courts have tossed election rules in place back in 16" in several states which were key to Trump. All of that went down in 2016. I am not even venturing into the more subjective stuff like Comey's last minute decision, Cambridge Analyticia's involvement, etc or standard campaign gaffes. All of that made the difference not Hillary Clinton's smile. Currently Trump is publicly work to interfere with mail in voting, has openly floated moving the election, FL is still in court trying to keep a million people from voting, National Intelligence has conformed foreign interfere, COVID19 is killing a thousand people a day, etc, etc matter more than Kamala Harris's smile. I would argue she didn't lose and the election was manipulated.

The Vice President presides over the Senate. It is the only Constitutional duty the VP has. Susan Rice has never held elective office while Kamala Harris is currently a Senator and sits on the committees for Budget, DHS, Intelligence, and Judiciary. Biden appears to have had a good working relationship with Rice but ultimately Harris fits the bill on paper better to do the job itself. Not just the campaigning stuff but to work with her current colleagues in the Senate to advance the Presidents agenda. Harris has been in the Senate working these last few years while Rice has been out of govt. My guess is Rice will be Biden Sec of State or U.N. Ambassador which is a natural fit for the progression of her career.

During the 2016 election only 55% of eligible voters participated. Of that Trump got 46% of the vote. Meaning only 25% of eligible voters in 2016 voted for Trump. So saying 1/3 of Americans is too high.

History shows us their aren't limits. Many people, not me necessarily, think Humans as a species with eventually destroy/extinct ourselves. So subjectively we can get to a point where the pendulum can never return.

I disagree with this axiom. Events over the last couple years have taken us beyond what most reasonable people would have considered the travel range.

If dissolved I suspect the NRA will continue on a private organization and little will change. The NRA will simply have to offload the present assets and start paying taxes moving forward. George Zimmerman falls into this category. Zimmerman claims Martin was attempting to murder him (a felonious act). I thin is fair to say Zimmerman's account of events are questionable. Problem is there were no witnesses. So Zimmerman's account stands unchallenged. I suspect a number of the cases which make up the stats in your like fall into that category. The numbers are probably lower than what's recorded. Unfortunately I don't what to what degree.

I accept this is your definition as context for questions and statements posed in this thread. However I worry we'll read into some struggles. Kleptomania is a known mental disorder. It is also stealing. Which fits into your definition for crime. I would argue that psychologically Kleptomina is more akin to gambling than rape, murder, etc. Kleptomania is a compulsive disorders. Gamble too can be as well. One is a crime and the other a taboo, I suppose, because of the amount of inconvenience they cause others? Right vs wrong are constructs society creates. In some societies it is acceptable (Right) for parents to use violence on their children as a form of punishment. In other societies is not (wrong). So in discussion the effects on the brain that anything (drugs, violence, etc) has I think it is best to remove subjective stuff like right vs wrong. There are stages to the Human brains development. Stress creates fight or flight responses in the brain that impact the way a developing mind develops (stress isn't limited to violence of course. There is research out there suggesting the daily struggles of poverty too impacts brain development, here.). The impact can result in a person being more prone to fight than flight or vice versa. For that matter one can development a greater sensitively to stress and respond aggressively to what society would broadly view as mild stress. Here is an interesting study about the potential impacts on the brain, here.

I don't disagree. I just need nec2009's define to better address the question they ask.

I do not feel you have defined crime yet. There is a huge difference between the behavioral reason and possible genetic precursors for breaking various laws. Serial killers and people who avoid paying their taxes are very different yet both commit crimes. Even with a specific category of crime I see broad differences. Take statutory rape. A 20yrs engaging in such an act with a 17yrs in a locality where 18yrs old is the limit is committing that crime. However in my opinion the motives for doing so, underlying mental issues, threat to the community, etc are different for that 20yr old than say a 55yr old who does the etc same thing. Both are bad but I think one is far worse yet legally they are identical in many place.

My understanding (which is admittedly limited) is that legally a non-profits assets can only be allocated to another non-profit, here. I think those assets would all have to be transferred away if its status were changed. Those assets legally couldn't be part of a new for profit vs of the NRA less of course the NRA purchased them all back with money acquired post being a non-profit. Dissolution is a State managed process. Where as Tax Exemption is both State and Federal. Far as I can tell from light reading the IRS doesn't distinguish between Dissolution and other ways an organization loses its Tax Exempt Status, here. So I think dissolution and removing their tax exempt status are functionally the same thing. Seems dissolving the organization is the route a state would go vs the federal govt. As an organization the NRA is very political. However that doesn't mean holding them to legal standard is political. If the charges could be shown in court to be purely politically motivated that would be cause dismissal. I assume you know this which is why this thread is in Ethics and not Politics. You seek a discussion of the cases specifics and not an opinion on the NRA as a whole. NY's AG is saying that the NRA misused over $60 million dollars worth of charitable funds on this link vacations, non-board member approved contacts to allies, gifts, etc. Per NY law all charitable moneys must go towards the organizations stated charitable mission. The NRA's stated charitable missions is (Summary): Defend the Constitutions, promote law & order nationally, train firearm safety nationally, promote firearm sports nationally, promote hunting nationally. We is the complete suit file, here. Because of the domestic nature of the NRA's stated mission I think they will have a difficult time explaining how expensive African Safaris and private chartered jet flights to the Bahamas support their mission. It is an interesting chase. I personally think it too a lot of courage to file the suit. Because the NRA is such an established politically juggernaut there will absolutely be criticism. Many will feverishly defend the NRA purely out of political loyalty. It would be unethical to withhold a suit for fear of political optics though.

I've told this story before in another thread here so I will summarize it this time. True story, my wife and I we in a minor fender bender back in 2009. I was driving and have a crystal clear memory of the event. I remember the people driving the the other vehicle, the make and color of the vehicle, etc, etc. A couple years back for whatever reason my wife and I were discussing the event and she remembered a different color, make, and different passengers. My wife keeps all her old cell phones. She she pulled out her old phone, charged it up, and produced photos from the fender bender. Her memory was accurate and mine was not. I misremembered the make, color, and passengers. Craziest part is now that I am away of the truth my memory is still of the wrong make, color, and people. I just know that it is wrong now.

No, I am merely pointing out that I am not making any definitive claims about the external world.

The distinction I am referencing is between the observed world (what ones mind observes) and the external world. Ones mind can falsely observe things. When I realize I have seen, heard, felt, smelled, remembered, etc things which are not real I am realizing that distinction. What I observe in my mind in a moment and what can be observed with consistency (by oneself over time, collectively by peers, with measuring devices, etc) are different things. That doesn't make the external world real. It just means there is a distinction between what creates the data the mind receives and the way the mind processes data. If the two were the same there wouldn't be discrepancies between what is observed and what is believed to be. I would never hear something which I determine not to be there.