https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-capitol-riot-colorado-maine-d784759ab9376d4c3a6e3ae72465f448

I have been reading through this book over the past month. (It may have been suggested to me by a poster here.)

I find it a very interesting exploration of the evolutionary basis of political behaviors and the preference for freedom.

One quote that struck me today - “Therefore a rational citizen will pay much more attention to deciding what kind of car or breakfast cereal he wants than to who he prefers for President.”

This has always struck me as true and a primary reason to limit the effect which politicians have on our lives.

What do people here think of Trump’s prospects in the general election?

Apparently the polling on this has him and Biden in a dead heat in the general election. Certainly he has his very strong base. But it strikes me that is not enough in itself to win in the general.

If he tacks toward the middle as the election closes in, it seems he won’t lose his base. But that may just bring us back to a repeat of 2020. This is of course the general strategy.

Could another strategy be to instead tack further right and in a libertarian way? It is often said that the far right and far left sort of converge when it comes to many freedom issues. I know he is a populist nationalist, but I wonder if that might work?

I originally posted this on MeWe, but it struck me it applies to many conversations on this forum as well. (Of course I spend most of my time on FlyersForum these days, but there aren't many political discussions there so not so applicable there.)

In many discussions here on social media one runs into people who just seem to believe something no matter what the evidence. And indeed they often can't even think of any evidence which could exist in principle which would persuade them of the falsity of the belief.

This is an example of a non-falsifiable belief. I normally just politely note that when it becomes apparent and stop discussing the contents of that belief. But oftentimes people just don't seem to understand what it means to have a non-falsifiable belief. So I thought I should illustrate this distinction with a simple and concrete example.

I have a strong belief that gravity pulls objects toward the center of the earth. Really I am very confident this is true. But what if someone says to me "I don't think your belief is true and it strikes me your belief is non-falsifiable."

I can properly address this question about my belief by thinking of and stating how to falsify it. In this case, I can imagine an experiment which would persuade me that my belief is false. For example, if one holds out an orange at arm's height and lets go of it and it either stays where it is or starts moving upward, and this would be observed on multiple occasions and circumstances, that would persuade me that my belief is false. Therefore my belief is falsifiable.

Note I cannot address the question of whether my belief is falsifiable by taking out an orange and dropping it and showing it goes down toward the center of the earth. That only addresses whether the belief is true or false, NOT whether my belief is falsifiable.

Now in the case of political questions which are so often discussed here, of course the evidence is softer whether a proposition is true or false. That is why social sciences are "softer" than basic physics. But the same distinction about beliefs holds.

I find this often a good way to determine whom it is interesting to discuss a topic with and with whom it is not.

(Cross posted from my MeWe account)

The main thesis of the book "3 Felonies A Day" (https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G/) is that given the huge number of Federal laws and regulations which have been criminalized, that any person performing a serious function in society is arguably committing 3 felonies each day. Some of them very obscure and hard to even know. And thus if the prosecutors want to get you, they can. If not convict, they can make your life hell for a long time.

If we take this thesis seriously it would seem to imply that they can likely convict Trump of something. I think this is a sad state of affairs generally for all citizens of course and don't support it. But it is a result of many policies promoted by both major political parties.

So what will happen if Trump is convicted and sentenced? Will people finally realize that we live in police state lite and say enough is enough and rise up to bring an end to this, by force of arms if necessary?

Somehow I don't suspect that will happen. A fair fraction of the population hate Trump and will think he is getting what he deserves and even got off easy. In that case, I suppose the best that could happen is some future legislation which starts to peel back this excessive Federal government's police powers. What may be more likely is not that, but that a future President of very conservative nature pardons him.

Given how long these cases can drag on, I would not be surprised to see the adjudication of this case drag out way after 2024. I suppose Trump could even run for President while under indictment.

In terms of the searches and warrants and property. I also expect that to drag on and on. Trump has claimed that there are privileged materials involved. That means they will now appoint a separate filter team to go through everything for privilege, before passing it on to the normal investigation team. That will take a long time. After that the investigators will want to look through everything in detail to see if they can find evidence of one of the 3 felonies a day he likely committed. Then there will be charges. Then negotiations. Then maybe a trial. Then sentencing. Then appeal. After all that, he might get his property back.

Since a number of posters have indicated an interest in Michael Weinstein's (aka steingar) prop strike accident in the V35B gear collapse thread, I thought I would move that separate discussion to its own thread.

This from a thread in mooneyspace in December 2017 titled "About time I fessed up" (https://mooneyspace.com/topic/23693-i-should-really-think-about-giving-up-this-aviation-thing/#comment-376115)

"August 2016 I was delivering my Mooney M20c to my mechanic, Bobby Norman, at the Parr airport (42I) in Zanesville Ohio. I had interaction with Bobby years ago, and he came highly recommended by a number of local Mooney owners.  I had thought the field was about 2300 feet (wrong, more on that later) so coming in over the trees I pulled the power to idle, put it in a forward slip and came down.  75mph over the numbers, flared and BANG!.  Hardest landing I'd ever done in anything.  At the top of the bounce I had a choice, and decided to ride it out. I was uncomfortable trying to go around at a short strip in that predicament.  The aircraft bounced a couple more times and stopped, and I taxied back.  I had struck the prop in that landing, quite badly.

The prop was bent asymmetrically, and the craskshaft busted.  I hit hard enough that the force went through the gear into the Johnson bar, wrecking the mechanism that holds it in place (Bobby only figured that part out when he started taxiing.  He said it was quite exciting)."

Typical story of anti-competitive behavior by large established companies using the law to try and squelch competition - https://aeroxplorer.com/articles/how-southwest-took-over-dallas-love-field-airport.php