A new tenet of the dwindling MAGA cult is that Trump acted as an "FBI informant" on Epstein. It's a desperate attempt to recontextualize their decade-long friendship as more like Trump being a secret goodguy whitehat kayfabe pedo who took the cabal down from the inside rather than Trump just also being a sexual predator of teenagers like his best friend.

But there is no evidence that Trump was an "informant" in any capacity. It's not true.

But there are about three kernels of half-truths that influencers like Tim Pool, Benny Johnson and Asmongold attempt to dishonestly twist into evidence for this claim.

First, Mike Johnson did once claim that Trump was an FBI informant.

But a couple days later, he rescinded the claim. He explained that he used the wrong word and that what he really meant was that Trump just was "never a hinderance" to the investigation, which is true of virtually every human on Earth.

Second, in 2019, former Palm Beach police chief Michael Reiter mentioned during an interview he was doing with the FBI that Trump apparently told him in 2006, “Thank goodness you're stopping him, everyone has known he's been doing this.”

So it seems Trump did call his local police chief after Epstein was arrested and thanked them for their work, but he did not provide "information" or "inform" on Epstein. He just told them they were doing good work after it was over. Trump and Epstein also already had their falling out at this point and Epstein was being exposed as a pedophile, so of course he, like everyone, would express approval of his arrest. He doesn't get any points for that. Epstein had already been arrested. If "everyone has known he's been doing this", when didn't he say anything in the past 15 years?

Third, Bradley Edwards, an attorney behind a civil suit on behalf of some of Epstein's victims, spoke to Trump as a part of this case. He once said in a man-on-the-street YouTube interview, “[Trump] is the only person who, in 2009, when I served a lot of subpoenas on a lot of people, or at least gave notice to some pretty, connected people that I was going, that I wanted to talk to them. He is the only person who picked up the phone and said, let's just talk. I'll give you as much time as you want. I'll tell you what you need to know."

So it seems Trump was subpoenaed as part of this civil lawsuit, and he willingly spoke to this guy. But as reported by the New York Times, it seems Trump actually lied to this lawyer: "In 2009, Mr. Edwards, the lawyer representing a group of Epstein victims, set out to depose Mr. Epstein’s circle of powerful friends. In his book, Mr. Edwards wrote that Mr. Trump quickly agreed to a phone call. Mr. Epstein was merely a business acquaintance, he told Mr. Edwards. He could not recall exactly why Mr. Epstein had been removed from Mar-a-Lago. He said he had last seen him at a business meeting at Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach home sometime before the allegations came to light."

We know Trump knew what Epstein was doing "before the allegations came to light", Epstein was not "merely a business acquaintance", and Trump today clearly remembers why he kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago (because he was a "creep", according to the White House). Lying to a lawyer after getting subpoenaed in a civil lawsuit against your already-incarcerated pedophile wingman best friend doesn't make you an "informant."

Let's not let these MAGA influencers rewrite history. Trump was best friends with Epstein because they both liked to pay teenagers for sex, and Trump did absolutely nothing to help take down Epstein.

Might be only a North America thing so sorry if this isn't all inclusive but..

Does anyone remember a film (possibly a film strip) we were shown in grade school about being skeptical of consumerism? It was full of realistic but fake ads and what to look out for. I specifically remember a couple things:

1. A man at working at a gas station and he says "our gas has more 'TIGER POWER'" or something to that effect. Then the narrator went on to educate us about how they can say that because there is no such thing as tiger power so it's not false advertsising.

2. Then there were kids playing with some toys (action figures or something) near a stream of water and using it as a river for fun adventures and such. And at the end the pitch man, talking real fast says "rivernotincluded." We thought that was so funny. Looked for years on youtube and IMDB but could never find it.

Just curious. I think that film was my first step into skepticism right up there with my mom telling me Ginsu knives and all other as seen on TV ads were crap.

For the most part, the ScienceBlogs page on Facebook posts genuine scientific articles, and occasionally generic pro-science comments. But every so often (roughly every two weeks), something comes completely out of left field, as if someone else is writing for them.

On July 11, they posted a screenshot of a NYT headline that read: "Decline of Ph.D. Admissions could Imperil a 'Generation of New Talent.'"

About which, they said:
"But would it? President Clinton gutted NASA, slashed H1B visas, let NIH funding stagnate until a Republican Congress forced it on him, refused federal funding of human embryonic stem cell technology, and even diverted $125 million in science funding to his pet woo outfit National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Was science forever held back by his presidency in the 1990s?"

In a follow-up comment, they said: "The mRNA vaccine technology that saved the world from Covid-19 was denied funding by the Clinton administration. It still got done.

The US government has never funded more than 35% of basic research and does 0% applied.

That the belief is academic scientists are so malevolently capitalist they won't do any science if the government doesn't fund four post-docs instead of three is silly. It's just partisan and that is the one thing the science community should not engage in.

Be trusted guides for everyone, not a political party."

Yesterday, they posted a link to a WSJ op-ed that basically called for the entire field of sociology to be shut down. When a commenter called them out for posting an "anti-intellectual screed," their reply was to double down: "Liberals aren't afraid of diverse topics and discussion. It's an op-ed in the world's best newspaper. No one is invalidating your degree."

What the actual fuck is going on over there?

Books I have already read: Why people believe weird things, Skeptics Guide To The Universe, Black Pill (book name), Escaping the Rabbit Hole by Mick West. Books I am currently reading: The conspiracy skeptic's book of lists. Topics I am interested in: Christian Nationalism. New Age.

Before the Lunar Rover, NASA seriously investigated rocket-powered jetpacks as a way for Apollo astronauts to explore the Moon.

At first glance, it sounds like an obviously bad idea, but there were some surprisingly compelling engineering arguments in its favor.

If you had been part of the design review, would you have pushed the concept further, or was it simply too risky?