|
For more January 6th content: https://mobile.twitter.com/sfoguj/status/1571878962556727297 This ruling is a fairly good example of evenhanded justice despite the claims of persecution. To briefly summarize, Justice would like to be able to bring in most of the inflammatory Oath Keeper's zello chat. Watkins would prefer none of it be admissible. The judge has permitted much of it, including the most directly relevant portions, but withheld the worst of it. He (correctly, IMO) identifies that whatever direct evidence those statements provide will be overshadowed by the inflammatory rhetoric that is not relevant to the charges against Watkins "Find out where the tunnels are and block them too", "Citizen's Arrest, arrest this assembly, these treasonous fuckers", and "military principle 105, military principle 105, cave means grave" are all statements made by others on the chat and there is little to no indication Watkins heard or took action on them. The government wants them in not because Watkins is accused of blocking the tunnels or having attempted a Citizen's Arrest but because it paints her blatant criming in an even worse light. gently caress the Oath Keepers and all, but Mehta seems to have the balance right here.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:They had 40-year-olds, and 50-year-olds, and 60-year-olds, and 70-year-olds. A life expectancy of 22 does not mean everyone dies before they reach that age, any more than a life expectancy of 70 in 1960 means that decade saw no septuagenarians. While this is true (and that particular misunderstanding of life expectancy statistics also happens to be one of my top pet peeves -- no, the ancient Romans did not lack for elderly people, and they were not "aged" by the time they reached 25, ffs!), I also think that the rise of prescriptions for statins in the 1990s--as well as some other medical advancements relevant to diseases of old age--has played a significant role in effectively extending the employment lifespans of well-off people in the US. I agree that social factors are playing a big part, but I don't think we can write off medical advancements as irrelevant to the change we're seeing here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
You can look up life-expetancy-at-65 OECD data for many countries. Uncheck the "latest data available" and slide the slider as far back as 1960. https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/life-expectancy-at-65.htm Expected lifespan at 65 has been steadily rising (until COVID) but not as drastically at lifespan--at-birth. It's climbed from 15.8 years in 1960 to 20.8.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
The question isn't so much whether people are living much longer as it is whether with cholesterol, blood pressure, glucose, etc. better controlled, they're feeling alert enough to continue performing intellectual labor longer than they once did. I'd be interested in any studies on that, as it seems to me that there has been some change there. But this is probably quite a derail from the topic at hand. Sorry about that! Lychnis fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Sep 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Lychnis posted:While this is true (and that particular misunderstanding of life expectancy statistics also happens to be one of my top pet peeves -- no, the ancient Romans did not lack for elderly people, and they were not "aged" by the time they reached 25, ffs!), I also think that the rise of prescriptions for statins in the 1990s--as well as some other medical advancements relevant to diseases of old age--has played a significant role in effectively extending the employment lifespans of well-off people in the US. I agree that social factors are playing a big part, but I don't think we can write off medical advancements as irrelevant to the change we're seeing here. Why, because it means there's more people 70+? Here is the population pyramid of 1980:  3%-5% (M-F) of the 1980 US population was 70+. Here is the population pyramid of 2022:  5%-7% (M-F) of today's population is 70+. Can a 50% increase in the elderly population share over the last four decades really have much effect at all on the quintupling of their representation in Congress during that same timespan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Why, because it means there's more people 70+? "isn't necessarily irrelevant" does not mean "fully explains all aspects and is causally responsible".
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The reason life expectancy back then was so low was the same reason it was low in the 1800s: infant and child mortality. Once you reached age 5 or so, life expectancy shot way up; teenagers two thousand years ago, or two centuries ago, could expect to live nearly as long as teenagers today. What really changed the actuarial tables over the course of the 1900s was the near-total elimination of infant and child mortality in more and more countries over time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:It's all those young people voted during that dip in the 1980s who have just stuck around. Comparing it to the 1800s is kind of silly because there just weren't that many 70 year olds around to even be in office. Even in 1960, the life expectancy was around 70 years old, and it's improved to 78 now. I'm hoping we see some mass retirements/deaths soon and we can reset a little to get younger people in office. We have 6 senators over 80, they can't be around for that much longer. Strom Thurmond (spit) celebrated his 100th birthday in office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:That's absurd and completely irrelevant. Even in 1850, the percentage of people in their 70s who were still alive was 22%; by, 1890 that number had grown to 30%. [source] Even if you start from a small number, say 700,000 (the first census found a population of 3.9 million, and the first 8 censuses found a population growth rate of 32-36% per decade, so calculate it back a bit to get an estimate of the growth over the decade of the 1770s), and take only 22% of that, it's still three orders of magnitude larger than the size of Congress. Especially back then, when it was a couple hundred seats smaller than it is today. So, considering you only need 0.05% of the population born 70 years ago to be alive to completely fill Congress in 1850, if in fact you have 22%+ of them still alive, then lack of eligible candidates in 1850 is not the problem. Ok, I shouldn't have pulled life expectancy at birth, but life expectancy for adults has still grown considerably in the last 50 years, let alone what was happening in the 1800s, which is what I was really getting at. I can't really find any good data on life expectancy in the 1800s, but since 1950, the life expectancy for a 65 year old white man has grown from 12.8 years to 16.1 in the year 2000 (this was the best data I could google at the moment). Now figure what the was like in the 1800s. Of course there were still people over 70 or 80 back then, but it was still a dramatically smaller scale to the whole population, and being alive at 80 also meant being in worse health compared to a lot of 80 year olds today. It would make a pool of available congressmen at that age tiny to what is around today. Sorry, this is a major derail for this thread, and I'll drop it from here. I just wanted to explain my original point a little better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
Agreed it's a good FAQ from a lawyers POV
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:"isn't necessarily irrelevant" does not mean "fully explains all aspects and is causally responsible". If that's all Lychnis meant then that's trivially true, and meaningless, because literally everything that happened everywhere in the world during that timespan "might not be totally irrelevant". In which case, how is that possibly a counter to "Nope [it's a change in voting preferences, not mere incumbency effect]"? Why disagree with a proposed cause, while making your own argument, if you're not actually proposing your argument is more explanatory?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:That's absurd and completely irrelevant. Even in 1850, the percentage of people in their 70s who were still alive was 22%; by, 1890 that number had grown to 30%. [source] This source took me quite a bit to understand, this isn't my background at all, and I'm not fully sure I understand your sourcing. I assume you used l(x) of the 70-74 range of one of them since that generally provides numbers within 1% of your stated percentages. I might be totally misunderstanding how you achieved your percentages, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Some questions/concerns about your analysis: If we're talking about the entire group of people in their 70s, wouldn't summing 70-74 and 75-79 and dividing by 200,000 be a more appropriate estimate of that range than 70-74/100,000? Using the U.S. Model (Brass 2 parameter logit model) for total population for both sexes for 1850 (p.21) that gives 21,943 for 70-74 and 15,346 for 75-79, or 37,289 per 200,000 => 18.6%. For 1890 (p. 27), that would be 28,541 and 20,227, or 48,768 per 200,000 => 24.38%. Do you disagree that these present more accurate descriptions of the range? The next question is 'why use total population'? I'm not 100% sure you were, and I might be misreading your sourcing, but since we're looking at 19th century congress, shouldn't we actually be looking at white men? That's a bit worse than total population. For 1850 (p. 29), that's (21,345+ 14,707) / 200,000 = 18.0%. For 1890 (p. 35), that's (29,091 + 20,526) / 200,000 = 24.8%. quote:Even if you start from a small number, say 700,000 (the first census found a population of 3.9 million, and the first 8 censuses found a population growth rate of 32-36% per decade, so calculate it back a bit to get an estimate of the growth over the decade of the 1770s), and take only 22% of that, it's still three orders of magnitude larger than the size of Congress. Especially back then, when it was a couple hundred seats smaller than it is today. So, considering you only need 0.05% of the population born 70 years ago to be alive to completely fill Congress in 1850, if in fact you have 22%+ of them still alive, then lack of eligible candidates in 1850 is not the problem. Why are you looking at all people? All people were not eligible, unless you already were in that 700,000 figure (again, a bit confused as to your math). Only half are male, less than that are white males. Why even use the 1770 census? There's an 1850 census https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1853/dec/1850a.html. 19.5 million free whites in 1850 according to it, of which presumably half are male, so population of 10mil for 1850 from which to take your percentages. 1890 is harder because of a fire. Whoops. Still 18% of 10 million is still plenty enough people to fill Congress. That doesn't really counter your point. That said, the arguments about increasing viability at older age do: You also probably don't want to run for congress if you're going to die within the next 8 years. How likely are you to die in the next 8 years? That's kind of past me, but 5 is a more conservative estimate than 8 and looks easy to figure. Will if you're one of the 21,345 per 100,000 white males in 1850, only 14,707 of your buddies are making it to that next bracket of 75-79. 69% survival between those brackets. If you're 75-79, how likely are you to make it to that next bracket in 1850? According to these life tables, 9,602 make it, or 65%. For 1890 those numbers are (20,526/29,091)=70.6% and (12,030/30,526) = 58.6%. You probably don't know you're going to die in the next six years, but you might not run for congress if you feel like poo poo, and feeling like poo poo is correlated to dying, though I don't know how much. I took some data from the Social Security administration here: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html, averaged the brackets to match the brackets in the reference you cited, and the survival rates to the next bracket from 70-74 and 75-79 are 85.0% and 76.7%. It's probably better if we include women too. I feel like this probably equates into a greater ability to perform the duties of office and a higher expectation or survival beyond compared to the 19th century, meaning a greater pool of applicants.  Fakeedit: this took so long I got beated by a lot--this is an argument framing problem, not a math problem. Xiahou Dun posted:"isn't necessarily irrelevant" does not mean "fully explains all aspects and is causally responsible". Xiahou Dun's got the right of it. This is multi-causal. I'm spit-balling here, but some of it's probably due to availability of older applicants. Some of it is also due to the fact that other representatives are less likely to try and kill you, and less likely to succeed if they did. Some of it is probably due to health being less of a factor in completing the responsibilities of a representative (it was a month long arduous cross country trip each way for west coast senators in the 1850s). Today's 70 year olds are healther than last century's 70 years olds. Some of it is probably voter preference, but even that is a complicated multi-causal mess. It's easier for 70-year-olds to campaign now with mass media than it was before, which will impact voter preference. Wealth effects and reputation accrual probably also has an effect on voter preference. realedit: I see your point too. You were countering a singular idea; you're not wrong to counter against the idea of 'there weren't enough people available.' I think the idea of 'available people,' however is more complicated than how many 70-year-olds there are. More 70-year-olds probably means larger groups of all the requisite subordinate groupings. Healthy-enough 70 year olds, wealthy-enough 70 year olds, 70 year olds with agreeable records, etc., which in turn affects voter preference. piL fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Sep 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
Current Congress seems to have no problem with representatives who are extremely infirm and/or senile doesn't feel like imminent death is much of a deterrent, probably less so in the pre-TV era. But this is a dumb derail
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I'd argue that it doesn't necessarily want to elect septuagenarians, it wants to elect the same person that's been doing a good job the whole time. Check out the year most of the current septuagenarians were first elected; I guarantee you it wasn't on their 70th birthday or anywhere near. Main Paineframe posted:incumbency Main Paineframe posted:incumbents[...]incumbents[...]incumbents The problem with this theory is that the incumbency effect no longer exists. It's been trending down for decades. At this point it explains barely 1% of the result in any given election; partisanship of the respective district predicts nearly all of it.  [source]How could the incumbency effect have caused this recent skyrocketing of the number of septuagenarians in Congress, if the two trends are negatively correlated over nearly the entire time period in question? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
My person, you do know that entire population trends are never going to be monocausal, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Well that graph seems to be for general elections. If those are explained by partisan lean then you would need to look at the primaries for an incumbent effect, because then the length of service for a member of congress would depend on how difficult it is to unseat incumbents in party primaries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Here's the US population of people over 65 in raw numbers and as a percent of the overall population. It's based on the US Census Bureau data, but the graph was from a random google search (looking at the actual Census data it looks right except for a typo in the title, but by all means check me on the accuracy of the numbers). Cutting off the part that's future projections and scaling it and then putting it on top of the graph from the tweet you get something like:  Theoretically to figure out if over-70s are really overrepresented in Congress you'd have to look up what percentage of the population is under 25 and 30 and apply that to the Congressional numbers. But looking at it, just comparing the over-65 number to the 70s-in-Congress number, it looks like the Congressional number is ~30-odd-percent higher than the overall population number. And I haven't looked up the numbers for under-25 and under-30, but under-18 is currently about 25% of the US population. So at first blush it really looks like over-70s were under-represented in Congress from sometime in the '60s to around 2010. Which honestly isn't what I would've guessed, my general perception is that Congress is much older than it actually is, possibly because of the age of some high-profile members of Congress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
I honestly think a lot of that "old people get elected" chart has a lot to do with simple name recognition. I think it's a big part of how Biden got elected too. "I've heard of this person before" when, like most people no posting here, one doesn't pay a ton of attention to politics, it works a lot like advertising does. Just repetition, at least to some extent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I honestly think a lot of that "old people get elected" chart has a lot to do with simple name recognition. I think it's a big part of how Biden got elected too. "I've heard of this person before" when, like most people no posting here, one doesn't pay a ton of attention to politics, it works a lot like advertising does. Just repetition, at least to some extent. Eddie Murphy did a (bad) movie about this back in the early 90s. He played a conman who changed his name to sound like the same congressman that had recently retired and got himself elected to office. Man of the People I think it was called?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Eddie Murphy did a (bad) movie about this back in the early 90s. He played a conman who changed his name to sound like the same congressman that had recently retired and got himself elected to office. Man of the People I think it was called? The Distinguished Gentleman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfOSA34yjuI
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:The Distinguished Gentleman. Yeah, thats the one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 03:07
|
|
|
Big surprise, they got their special master and... now disagree with the plan. https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/19/politics/special-master-review-justice-department-trump-mar-a-lago-documents/index.html quote:they oppose having to immediately make disclosures about declassification related to the Mar-a-Lago documents as part of the special master process ordered by a federal judge this month quote:lawyers additionally flagged concerns with the draft plan's apparent proposal to have the Rule 41 motions litigated in the docket before US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, the judge who approved the warrant for the FBI's search quote:also suggested pushing back some of the interim deadlines that were laid out in the draft plan. Give an inch and they'll take six light-years. Give a minute and they'll take six months. Also I don't understand the bit about document coordination. The SM is reviewing the documents. Why does every single one have to also be reviewed by both teams at the same time? If the DOJ isn't using them in their eventual case, went does it have to be an additional burden now? Please Dearie, tell us tomorrow that you followed the ruling, have reviewed the first 100 already, and they're all going back to Justice as of 11am.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
He's bypassing all of that and the Trump team is about to face-plant: Dearie wants to know about Trump's "I de-classified these documents" claim and Trump's team replies, "We're not gonna divulge anything until we're charged with something." Now Dearie knows the gov't is calling the material classified and plaintiff (Trump) won't commit one way or another. If that's the case then you gotta tell me how this is privileged. Trump can't and won't. Dearie can cut right through this but the chudge gave herself the ability to fire him, too. So the appeals court really has to step in I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
Lol, that is quick by the standards of these things https://mobile.twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1572014457479462913
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 05:24
|
|
|
Surprise, surprise, the goalpost was moved but NOT FAR ENOUGH for the big wet boy. They want a dictator completely immune from the law. They won't ever be happy with less than that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 06:04
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/19/us/politics/trump-herschmann-documents.html?searchResultPosition=1 Pay/regwalled, but Herschmann, sr WH advisor, told Mr Peach that he faced investigation and legal liability if he did not return presidential records. Also Dearie set a self imposed schedule of October 7.  And just think, in another eight days there's another Jan 6 hearing. Mr Impeachment is going to be spewing fecalundity all over every online site available. (Amusing that the DeSantis thing is timed to serve as a distraction; is De S taking one for the team?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 07:51
|
|
|
Talk about drinking the koolaid https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1572085253593858048
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 09:40
|
|
|
It is like 48 hours now until Trump starts to (indirectly) call for the death of the special master he demanded, and the media amplifies his calls
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 09:58
|
|
|
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/20/politics/surveillance-footage-coffee-county-georgia-fake-trump-elector/index.html New footage confirms fake Trump elector spent hours inside Georgia elections office day it was breached A Republican county official in Georgia and operatives working with an attorney for former President Donald Trump spent hours inside a restricted area of the local elections office on the day voting systems there were breached, newly obtained surveillance video shows. The video reveals for the first time what happened inside the Coffee County elections office on January 7, 2021, the same day its voting systems are known to have been compromised. Among those seen in the footage is Cathy Latham, a former GOP chairwoman of Coffee County who is under criminal investigation for posing as a fake elector in 2020. CNN previously reported that Latham escorted operatives working with former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell through the front door of the elections office on January 7, 2021. The new footage appears to undercut previous claims by Latham that she was not "personally involved" in the breach.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 11:21
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Talk about drinking the koolaid they appointed a loving FISA judge and thought that he would be un-sympathetic to an FBI counter intelligence investigation  that's one of the most astounding things I've read in a long time. amazing
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 11:22
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:they appointed a loving FISA judge and thought that he would be un-sympathetic to an FBI counter intelligence investigation I think this is a good point. https://twitter.com/jakebackpack/status/1572181369001836544?s=46&t=mj3tRbqrqCGbt-CqevJUjg
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 12:28
|
|
|
I don't know if I buy that. Bet on corruption, every time.
Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Sep 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 13:27
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I don't know if I but that. Bet on corruption, every time. Having an overly broad grant of authority to the special master gives Cannon some cover if she needs to yank on his chain when he makes a decision that does not support her priors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 13:45
|
|
|
Lol, I knew Trump picked Dearie so they could point at him being involved with the Carter Page trial and call him biased. I hate being right all the time, gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Lol, I knew Trump picked Dearie so they could point at him being involved with the Carter Page trial and call him biased. I hate being right all the time, gently caress The DoJ, like the various internet lawyers, must've been scratching their heads, thinking what the 5d chess move was this supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
It could easily be both. "He'll be biased for us, or we'll claim in this other case shows he's biased against us." Comedy option: the judge meant to appoint someone else but mixed up the spelling of the name or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I think they picked him thinking he would be biased toward them though, no? Hell it works either way if you're a smooth brain, unfortunately for them, they did not know what they were actually going to get with Dearie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
It's all very pathetic. Chudge Cannon just had to ask Trump's lawyers to stake their claim so it could be evaluated, but she couldn't bring herself to do it. Now Dearie steps in and asks Trump's lawyers to write their defense down on paper and they refuse, saying "our defense is a secret until the DOJ charges trump with a crime!" I hope these lawyers are all disbarred as Trump is convicted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:It's all very pathetic. Chudge Cannon just had to ask Trump's lawyers to stake their claim so it could be evaluated, but she couldn't bring herself to do it. Now Dearie steps in and asks Trump's lawyers to write their defense down on paper and they refuse, saying "our defense is a secret until the DOJ charges trump with a crime!" Wise man says, "hope in one hand and poo poo in the other, see which gets filled first."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
The one constant about Republicans and their allies: they don't want to do work. They would rather hand it off to someone else (projection again of course) and then whinge when they don't get the results they imagined. Shirking responsibility so they can yell at someone for not going along with the masquerade. I imagine Cannon making the same face Paul Ryan had in every photo when he was in any sort of position of leadership. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Sep 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 15:26
|
|
