Yup. It happened in 2000 and 2016.

Are you trying to imply that anyone who emigrates and keeps their US citizenship is a retiree? Because I don't think that's true at all.

US citizens who retire abroad could renounce their US citizenship without consequences, if they are living in a country that has an agreement with the US that allows them to continue to receive Social Security as non-citizens.

Sure, there are drawbacks to renouncing your citizenship, not the least of which is the lack of status if you wish to return and reside. But there are also benefits, like relief from having to file US tax returns anymore.

As for non-retirees who emigrate, they may choose to remain US citizens with legal residence in another country. They could even become dual citizens if their new country permits it. There's nothing in principle that forces a non-retiree emigrant to de-naturalize.

And wherever they came from.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the US does not have a president who is elected directly by the voters. The individual states are apportioned electoral-college votes, and they hold elections to determine who gets them. Then the electoral college holds a vote to determine who becomes president. The number of electoral-college votes each candidate gets varies by state: some states are winner-take-all, and others are apportioned by the vote tallies.

So yes, the president is elected, but not in the way you might think.

Look at the membership. Generally they reflect only one side of the conflict in Gaza. War is Peace.

There are other parallels, but I think that's the strongest one.

Yes, Clarence Thomas claims Congress already delegated the authority to impose tariffs to POTUS. But his opinion is the minority opinion.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said:

https://www.newsweek.com/clare...

Trump loves tariffs. He has said over and over again that it's one of his favorite words. We can see why now.

The true purpose of tariffs is to level the playing-field for domestic producers in the face of cheap imports. Trump is using them to ransom other nations. And, as you showed, to enrich himself.

Really? [...quick Google searches...]

During Biden's term, SCOTUS addressed 25 cases and ruled in favor of the administration on 20 of them.

During Trump's second term (starting January 20, 2025) SCOTUS addressed between 28 and 30 cases, ruling in the administration's favor in the vast majority of them, including 20 out of 25 shadow-docket cases.

Per unit time, SCOTUS certainly has faced more cases in the first year of Trump 2.0 compared to all 4 years of Biden. They haven't exactly shown a tendency to push back more frequently though.

Thanks for your post. But on this:

Really? I hardly think so. With all due respect to biology, physics has been blessed with an embarassment of riches when it comes to hard data on which to build theories. And these theories have held up quite well, in some cases with spectacular accuracy. Much of the modern world depends on them crucially.

If you want to attack less settled parts of physics, you might start with cosmology. This is an area where evidence is hard to come by, and yet progress is still made, because what little evidence we have is solid. There are only so many ways you can explain the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the leading contender is the Big Bang. Cosmic inflation is supported by various indirect arguments, but indirect does not necessarily mean "weak". In short, you might be able to make an argument worth considering in cosmology, because so much is still being debated in that field.

Fair point. I was hesitant to use the word 'writings' for that reason, and now I regret it. Perhaps 'core beliefs' would have been better.

You then posted a link to the Institute for Creation Research. And that gives away your game.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Scientists accept it for that reason, not because they refuse to consider an alternative (or, as you say, the alternative of biblical creationism.)

You also misrepresent evolution as the explanation for "spontaneous emergence" of life -- a typical creationist tactic. You're confounding evolution with abiogenesis.

I respect your contributions in other parts of this discussion. I am certain we agree on almost everything. However, I think you may have mis-parsed my post. I'll confess I may have been sloppy with my use of the words "belief" and "faith" -- and thanks for illustrating that.

You say my view of science is religious. Nothing could be further from the truth! Scientists may indeed form "beliefs" about things they are studying. But they test those beliefs against evidence. If these beliefs survive this analysis, then they are accepted provisionally as a basis for further investigation, and are no longer called beliefs. If they don't, they are rejected. That's not what religion does.

You're right that scientists are humans and therefore are subject to human failings. It's the process of science, properly followed, that keeps them honest. Are you saying I put too much faith (pun intended) on how scientists conduct themselves? For the record, I don't -- I just think the collective effort of groups of scientists tends towards an objective assessment of claims.

A religion takes a collection of sacred writings as its inerrant source of facts. Science doesn't do that.

Science takes observations as facts, and builds testable, falsifiable models, theories, or laws from them. Whether a model, theory, or law survives depends on whether it can make accurate predictions or explanations of other observations. If it can't, then it is discarded. No faith or belief involved.

Now, scientists do form hunches and opinions, including on whether extraterrestrial life exists. They may engage in arguments about what contitutes possible evidence for it, and debate how and where such life could be found. But scientists are hard to convince, especially about something as extraordinary as the detection of extraterrestrial life. What would it take to convince them? As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordianry evidence." Scientists would temper their conviction of something by the strength or weakness of the evidence. They wouldn't just take something on "faith."

That said, there are many scientists who are religious. But they don't apply religious thinking when they're in their labs. They save that for their churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, and so on. They can keep those two parts of their lives separated.

And I give psychology a break here. Statistical variance in their data is typically much larger than in the physical sciences. The work psychologists do is worth doing, even though they cannot arrive at conclusions that are as precise. But they are still governed by evidence, just like other scientists.

That may indeed be the point. I think P.J. O'Rourke put it well:

Perhaps because they were deceived by a story that wasn't true?

See above.

Probably not. There are 13 letters allegedly written by Paul. Only 7 are considered authentic, and Romans is one of them. Now, whether the claims made in any of the letters are true ... well, that's a matter of faith. Historical corroboration is scant to nonexistent, and good luck convincing historians of any of the miraculous claims they contain.

Look, I know that the point here is that fropenn is wrong: the doctrine of Jesus dying to save sinners definitely pre-dates 500 CE. For example, Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (15:3), written 20 or 30 years after Jesus' death, says 'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures'. But Paul's words reflect a belief that was in the Christian community before his arrival. Again, that doesn't mean it's true.

In all likelihood, Jesus died at the hands of the Romans because he was considered an insurrectionist. The story changed to include resurrection and redemption from sins, to keep his myth and his church alive.

Won't happen. Trump will build a force-field around the earth, and make the aliens pay for it.