Utopian Galt wrote to All <=-
Will it be?
1. Bernie as president, Republican House, Tight Republican senate
margin of 1. 2. Trump as President, Republican House, Democratic
Party senate.
or what other outcome will it likely be?
or what other outcome will it likely be?
That's almost a Millionaire-ish question.... but I'll bite.
Will it be?
1. Bernie as president, Republican House, Tight Republican senate margin of 1. 2. Trump as President, Republican House, Democratic Party senate.
or what other outcome will it likely be?
Speaking as someone who *leans* Dem but honestly is almost absolutely
done with politics at this point - It's going to be Trump, most definitely. And if anything the DNC isn't going to go with Bernie - they're going to go with Biden, which, and I'm going to take off the kid gloves here and be absolutely blunt:
The biggest political blunder of all won't be Bloomberg wasting $500mil on a vanity project, it won't be losing the gen election to Trump...it'll be losing to him /again/.
ryan wrote to Nodoka Hanamura <=-
Truth spoken here. It's almost like democrats have trouble remembering what happened four years ago.
From what I've seen, Democrats are very reality-challenged. They are used setting the narrative then letting their Propaganda Ministry...er... The M repeat it many, many times until the public believes it.
ryan wrote to Dr. What <=-
Yeah. They also prey on people by pandering to identity politics. Like,
I think empowering all races and genders is great, but that doesn't
seem like a real political platform to me, when fixing poverty and
health care and stuff like that would rise everyone up more than a few notches toward equality. Plus it's hard to legislate morality. That's
more for the social conscious than for lawmakers.
Minimum wage is a great example. It's proven that minimum wage kills jobs But passing a minimum wage law makes some people think that the gov't is d something.
Some people want to legislate morality - at least that's what they say. W they actually want to do is legislate their BELIEFS.
ryan wrote to Nodoka Hanamura <=-
Truth spoken here. It's almost like democrats have trouble remembering what happened four years ago.
That implies that they have accepted the reality of what happened 4 years ag
From what I've seen, Democrats are very reality-challenged. They are used t setting the narrative then letting their Propaganda Ministry...er... The Med repeat it many, many times until the public believes it.
From what I've seen, Democrats are very reality-challenged. They are u setting the narrative then letting their Propaganda Ministry...er... Th repeat it many, many times until the public believes it.
Yeah. They also prey on people by pandering to identity politics. Like, I think empowering all races and genders is great, but that doesn't seem like real political platform to me, when fixing poverty and health care and stuff like that would rise everyone up more than a few notches toward equality. Plus it's hard to legislate morality. That's more for the social conscious than for lawmakers.
Agreed. Whether it be legislating someone's religious beliefs like the republicans want to do constantly or legislate identity policy like the left wants to do constantly, it doesn't really move us forward. Those two things actually turn into a wacky game of hot potato each election cycle.
Yes, so instead of "which one is the best?" it is "which of these bad candidates is not the worst?"
Yes, so instead of "which one is the best?" it is "which of these bad candidates is not the worst?"
And then my generation gets yelled at for not voting. lol
Prolly some of my generation, too. I think the ones that yell the most ar the ones that think you should be voting for "the party" rather than actually choosing a candidate. So, if they nominate Douche Bag or Turd Sandwich, that is who they believe you should be voting for. :)
And don't ever let them know you did vote, but for a third-party candidate! :O :D
Seriously. And if, god forbid, I think the frontrunner candidates suck (a likelihood at this point) and I pencil in someone else, it's not really throwing away my vote, because I care about every other part of the ballot.
In my opinion, you are never throwing away a vote. Voting for someone you think will do the best job, even if they have no chance of winning, is not throwing it away... it is voting your conscience (sp?). If I think both of the front-runners are truly bad choices, I like to be able to tell myself that at least I did not vote for them when the winner goes and proves me right.
Voting for someone you really don't think can do the job is far worse than voting for someone you think cannot win.
Re: Re: Likely 2020 outcome
By: Dr. What to ryan on Wed Mar 04 2020 05:50 pm
ryan wrote to Nodoka Hanamura <=-
Truth spoken here. It's almost like democrats have trouble rememberi what happened four years ago.
That implies that they have accepted the reality of what happened 4 years
From what I've seen, Democrats are very reality-challenged. They are use setting the narrative then letting their Propaganda Ministry...er... The repeat it many, many times until the public believes it.
democrats are such a huge disappointment. and even more disappointing are th people that follow these democratic politicans.
i wish there was another party that was decent that could be viable.
the forerunners of the democratic party are delusional to such a high degree
Voting for someone you really don't think can do the job is far worse than voting for someone you think cannot win.
I voted for myself for State Senate in 2018, I felt the incumbent blew goats. And I even voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 when I felt both made me hurl.
I feel good.
Will it be?
1. Bernie as president, Republican House, Tight Republican senate margin of 1.
2. Trump as President, Republican House, Democratic Party senate.
or what other outcome will it likely be?
The biggest political blunder of all won't be Bloomberg wasting $500mil on a vanity project, it won't be losing the gen election to Trump...it'll be losing to him /again/.
Minimum wage is a great example. It's proven that minimum wage kills jobs But passing a minimum wage law makes some people think that the gov't is d something.
I've read much that's contrary to this. :)
Tracker1 wrote to ryan <=-
At this point, given what the squad are pushing, and how much the rest
of the Democrat party are bending, for the most part the Conservatives
are a more sane option. Which sucks, because they're just as much
about reducing personal liberty these days as woke liberals.
The thing that kills me about dems/libs/lefties is not so different from what >kills me about rights/cons although I think dems do it more widely and in >greater numbers: the repeat something as if it is fact, and expect you to agree
but when you cite information that goes against their thoughts the first thing >they do is say "oh cmon, that's bs where's your proof?" even tho they supplied >0 proof of their arguments.
just had a heart attack aren't reasonable options. I mean, Yang was a
little optimistic, and for whatever reason Tulsi wasn't woke enough.
But at least I could have respected them if they'd gone farther. Tulsi
Dumas Walker wrote to ZOMBIE MAMBO <=-
Or they accuse you of hating science...
That's a standard Leftie operation:
1. Take a fact.
2. Then build a false Narrative around that fact that seems plausable for ignorant.
3. When someone criticizes the Narrative, point to the fact and say "But i fact!" and then counter with "You are a science denier."
1. Take a fact.
2. Then build a false Narrative around that fact that seems plausable for the ignorant.
3. When someone criticizes the Narrative, point to the fact and say "But it's a fact!" and then counter with "You are a science denier."
DW> That's a standard Leftie operation:
DW> 1. Take a fact.
DW> 2. Then build a false Narrative around that fact that seems plausable for
DW> ignorant.
DW> 3. When someone criticizes the Narrative, point to the fact and say "But i
DW> fact!" and then counter with "You are a science denier."
Got any examples?
3. When someone criticizes the Narrative, point to the fact and say "But i >DW> fact!" and then counter with "You are a science denier."
Got any examples?
Got any examples?
Some of the global warming "facts" over the years would fit this. I am not a denier of warming but, when you try to point out facts like the Earth has been though periods of excessive heating and cooling even before the birth of mankind, those that employ this method will quickly go bezerk and accuse me of being a denier of science and a Rush Limbaugh fan and whatever else they think makes me look dumb in comparison to their own denial of science.
Denn wrote to Dr. What <=-
Don't forget they never tell you where they get thier science from
they just state it as a fact that we should not question.
fact is they make shit up the use the science shield "don't you believe
in science" except they never tell you where they get their fake
science from.
Mindless Automaton wrote to ryan <=-
There are no examples, silly. Its just an unfounded generalization of people of a certain belief.
DaiTengu wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
I think you're being dramatic.
While it is true, earth has experienced periods of excessive heating
and cooling in the past, it's nothing like what we're currently seeing.
at. all. temperatures rose, on average, over thousands or even tens
of thousands of years. not years, or tens of years.
While it is true, earth has experienced periods of excessive heating
and cooling in the past, it's nothing like what we're currently
seeing. at. all. temperatures rose, on average, over thousands or
even tens of thousands of years. not years, or tens of years.
You really need to stop listening to the Leftie "experts" (you know, the ones out-standing in their field - if they only had a brain) and do you own research.
While it is true, earth has experienced periods of excessive
heating and cooling in the past, it's nothing like what we're
currently seeing. at. all. temperatures rose, on average, over
thousands or even tens of thousands of years. not years, or tens of
years.
I think you're being dramatic.
While it is true, earth has experienced periods of excessive heating and cool
g in the past, it's nothing like what we're currently seeing. at. all. tempe
tures rose, on average, over thousands or even tens of thousands of years. not
ears, or tens of years.
Or they get one of their Leftie "scientists" (who are a joke to their peer write a heavily biased paper.
The whole "climate change" narrative was completely debunked years ago. B the Lefties want their Narrative to be true and will ignore any facts that against it.
By who? Using what data? Sources, please.
By who? Using what data? Sources, please.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/
thats just one article found in mere seconds googleing it.
By who? Using what data? Sources, please.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/
thats just one article found in mere seconds googleing it.
@MSGID: <5E75D889.52579.dove-deb@vert.synchro.net>
By who? Using what data? Sources, please.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/
thats just one article found in mere seconds googleing it.
Did you follow the link by chance and see that this is false?
On 03-21-20 14:11, Denn wrote to ryan <=-
Is the earth warming right now? yes it is but not significantly.
Will it cool down again? yes it is certain to as it has in the past
many many times.
Eventually, the Earth will become too hot to support life, but no need to panic, none of us will be alive then, and I am pretty sure humans (as we
Yeah, I know that's not what we're discussing, but I couldn't resist. ;)
On 03-21-20 23:28, Denn wrote to Vk3jed <=-
@VIA: VERT/OUTWEST
Re: Re: Likely 2020 outcome
By: Vk3jed to Denn on Sun Mar 22 2020 12:39 pm
Eventually, the Earth will become too hot to support life, but no need to panic, none of us will be alive then, and I am pretty sure humans (as we
Or it could go the other way and we could be an ice planet to cold to support life, just a thought.
Yeah, I know that's not what we're discussing, but I couldn't resist. ;)
My point here is we can take it far left or far right in being
alarmists.
Denn wrote to DaiTengu <=-
In the 70's the alarmist's were crying Global cooling, then all of a sudden we started a warming cycle so then the alarmist's switched to Global warming. fact is the Earth goes through cycles.
By who? Using what data? Sources, please.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/
thats just one article found in mere seconds googleing it.
Denn wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Eventually, the Earth will become too hot to support life, but no need to panic, none of us will be alive then, and I am pretty sure humans (as we
Or it could go the other way and we could be an ice planet to
cold to support life, just a thought.
The whole Climate Change narrative from the Left is 2 ideas that they link 1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are responsible.
When you point out that there is no evidence for idea 2, they point to ide and say "you are denying science".
They also use that to twist science to their own ends. "Look, this study that the climate is changing! We must all stop driving cars at once!"
Snopes is a well known Left-leaning site. So it's politically biased and longer useful.
Or they accuse you of hating science...Exactly. The same science that has been proven "wrong" multiple times and they just roll with it each time as if its ok they preached wrongness and lived it for years.
The whole Climate Change narrative from the Left is 2 ideas that they linked: 1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are responsible.
Or it could go the other way and we could be an ice planet to
cold to support life, just a thought.
Actually.... No.
It's a scientific fact that the sun will expand and become a Red
Giant eventually, and engulf the earth. There's really no actual
doubt about that.
Or it could go the other way and we could be an ice planet to
cold to support life, just a thought.
Actually.... No.
It's a scientific fact that the sun will expand and become a Red
Giant eventually, and engulf the earth. There's really no actual
doubt about that.
That is still millions (or billions) of years away. In the
meantime, there is plenty of evidence in the geological record
that the Earth has been both nearly ice-free and nearly
ice-covered multiple times during its history, and that this is
cyclical. There is nothing that says we won't become too hot, or
too cold, to sustain life (and cycle through both more than once)
long before the Red Gian engulfment occurs.
DUMAS WALKER wrote to RYAN <=-
Seriously. And if, god forbid, I think the frontrunner candidates suck (a likelihood at this point) and I pencil in someone else, it's not really throwing away my vote, because I care about every other part of the ballot.
In my opinion, you are never throwing away a vote. Voting for someone
you think will do the best job, even if they have no chance of winning,
is not throwing it away... it is voting your conscience (sp?). If I
think both of the front-runners are truly bad choices, I like to be
able to tell myself that at least I did not vote for them when the
winner goes and proves me right.
Voting for someone you really don't think can do the job is far worse
than voting for someone you think cannot win.
In the (geologically) long term, the science definitely doesn't support that outcomeresist. ;)
Yeah, I know that's not what we're discussing, but I couldn't
My point here is we can take it far left or far right in beinglarmists.
Follow the science.
In the 70's the alarmist's were crying Global cooling, then all of a
sudden we started a warming cycle so then the alarmist's switched to
Global warming. fact is the Earth goes through cycles.
I also like to point out that the Sahara Desert used to be a jungle. Then the climate changed.
The whole Climate Change narrative from the Left is 2 ideas that they linked: 1. The climate is changing.again just because they say something is happening dosn't make it so without Data to back it up, and I mean true verifiable Data.
2. Humans are responsible.
When you point out that there is no evidence for idea 2, they point to idea 1 and say "you are denying science".
They also use that to twist science to their own ends. "Look, this study says that the climate is changing! We must all stop driving cars at once!"
Or it could go the other way and we could be an ice planet to
cold to support life, just a thought.
Actually.... No.
It's a scientific fact that the sun will expand and become a Red
Giant eventually, and engulf the earth. There's really no actual
doubt about that.
The whole climate change narrative from tens of thousands of scientists are:
1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are responsible.
It's not a political idea, it's not a narrative, it's science.
Or they accuse you of hating science...Exactly. The same science that has been proven "wrong" multiple times and they just roll with it each time as if its ok they preached wrongness and lived it for years.
Like coffee is good for you.
No its bad for you.
Wait its good for you.
Hold on, its NOT good for you.
On 03-23-20 01:27, Denn wrote to Vk3jed <=-
A periodic solar event called a "grand minimum" could overtake the sun perhaps as soon as 2020 and lasting through 2070, resulting in
diminished magnetism, infrequent sunspot production and less
ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth all bringing a cooler period
to the planet that may span 50 years."
You see when you say follow the science there is more than one school
of thought on Global waring/Global cooling.
All of it comes from scientific research but many times we see science bending the facts to fit a scenario that adheres to their beliefs.
here's a headline from https://www.scientificamerican.com/
Current Warming Is Unparalleled in the Past 2,000 Years
The headline implies this to be proven fact, here's a little problem,
we have only been keeping records a little over 100 years, so this is a huge problem for me because I don't automatically take anyones oppinion and assign it to fact.
I refuse to just take someones word for something just because they
say it's so. there needs to be proof to back up claims and so many
times there is none.
To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here
Denn wrote to Gamgee <=-
Or it could go the other way and we could be an ice planet to
cold to support life, just a thought.
Actually.... No.
It's a scientific fact that the sun will expand and become a Red
Giant eventually, and engulf the earth. There's really no actual
doubt about that.
Actually I doubt that so there you go there is doubt:)
there are many many Hypothesis out there, and really thats all
they all are.
It's sort of like all the Religeons in the world, they all say
they are the truth yet their doctrines clash with one another so
is there more than one truth? or are they all just Hypothesis.
True, the sun does dim periodically, the effects have been recorded in history.
It's a scientific fact that the sun will expand and become a Red
Giant eventually, and engulf the earth. There's really no actual
doubt about that.
It's sort of like all the Religeons in the world, they all say
they are the truth yet their doctrines clash with one another so
is there more than one truth? or are they all just Hypothesis.
It's nothing at all like religion. Nothing. It's basic science,
taught in elementary school.
Like coffee is good for you.
No its bad for you.
Wait its good for you.
Hold on, its NOT good for you.
So science, which is it?
Regardless, they side with science and change their lifestyles despite the odd
being decent in 10 yrs science will reverse its opinion.
Even in the previous Ice Ages, life went on.
The whole climate change narrative from tens of thousands of scientists are:
1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are responsible.
It's not a political idea, it's not a narrative, it's science.
The whole Climate Change narrative from the Left is 2 ideas that they linked: 1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are responsible.
When you point out that there is no evidence for idea 2, they point to idea 1 and say "you are denying science".
Snopes is a well known Left-leaning site. So it's politically biased and is no longer useful.
On 03-23-20 15:16, Denn wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I'm not a climate change denier really because I can see there is some climate changes going on, I just don't belive it's nearly as bad as the alarmist's make it out to be.
We're destroying rain forrests and polluting our air, land and water. Some of this can contribute most likely to climate change just not as dramatically as some try to make us think, I'm way more worried about pollution that pollutes water sources and ultimatley food sources.
And I'm sure that emmisions from cars and factories that pollute the
air contributes to climate change as well as pollution.
the quotes and headlines I posted we're merely to point out differing scientific oppinions and not my own per say.
I wan't to just keep an open mind and follow the true data wherever it
may lead.
1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are responsible.
It's not a political idea, it's not a narrative, it's science.
To fix it for you:
1. The climate is changing.
2. Science shows that human activity has accelerated these changes
3. Changes in human activty could limit the human influence on these
HSM wrote to Dr. What <=-
The whole climate change narrative from tens of thousands of scientists are:
1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are responsible.
It's not a political idea, it's not a narrative, it's science.
When you say there is no evidence for idea 2, you are in fact denying science, you just are.
Dumas Walker wrote to DR. WHAT <=-linked:
The whole Climate Change narrative from the Left is 2 ideas that they
1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are responsible.
I don't even deny that humans are partially responsible but, if I try
to point out that we are not soley responsible, I have had "true believers" go nuts. To me, saying that humans are the only reason
totally ignores science just as much as claiming that we have no
influence on it.
That's why the Climate Change nuts had to reclassify CO2 as a "pollutant".
But the Climate Change nuts always ignore any facts that don't match their narrative.
I believe there is Climate change but it's not as significant as the Alarm would have us believe.
here is an interesting article to consider.
That's a standard Leftie operation:
1. Take a fact.
2. Then build a false Narrative around that fact that seems plausable f ignorant.
3. When someone criticizes the Narrative, point to the fact and say "Bu fact!" and then counter with "You are a science denier."
Got any examples?
Can you link to a peer reviewed analysis, instead of an editorial of a far right neocon publication? This thing, instead of citing data, cites other far right depths of the internet as well as ... itself?
This isn't data. It's something asserted without evidence.
1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are responsible.
To fix it for you:
1. The climate is changing.4. There's not a damn thing anyone can do about it so get over it!
2. Science shows that human activity has accelerated these changes
3. Changes in human activty could limit the human influence on these
Re: Re: Likely 2020 outcome
By: ryan to Denn on Tue Mar 24 2020 03:11 pm
Can you link to a peer reviewed analysis, instead of an editorial of a right neocon publication? This thing, instead of citing data, cites oth far right depths of the internet as well as ... itself?
This isn't data. It's something asserted without evidence.
Uhmm no Ryan, use your brain, I remeber when they were caught fudging the data.
you see thats what you wako leftist's always do, you make a statment and assume that you won't get fact checked, then when you do get fact checked wi proof you ignore it.
why even debate if your to damn lazy to check the facts?
DaiTengu wrote to HusTler <=-
Yes there is. there are a lot of things humans can do about it. There are mountains of papers available on how we an mitigate man-made
climate change.
I see the argument of "The climate has changed before" thrown around a lot. That's true. Not at the speed it currently is changing, but
that's not my point.
the climate HAS changed before, and wiped out THE VAST MAJORITY OF LIFE
ON THE PLANET in the process. So, why shouldn't we do everything we
can to try and stop it?
Yes there is. there are a lot of things humans can do about it. There are moun >tains of papers available on how we an mitigate man-made climate change.
the climate HAS changed before, and wiped out THE VAST MAJORITY OF LIFE ON THE >LANET in the process. So, why shouldn't we do everything we can to try and sto
it?
I sit outside at lunch on nice days and eat my lunch. I have been surprised by the number of people who go out to their cars and, instead of putting the windows down, start the car and sit there for :30 or more going nowhere.
It wastes natural resources, it wastes money, it wastes whatever chemical it is that runs their A/C, and it pollutes the air. There is no denying any of those things. I don't work somewhere where someone can get rich enough to be able to waste that money alone, so why they do that every day blows my mind.
Nightfox wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
I haven't noticed people doing that, and haven't done that myself, but
I agree that would be a weird thing to do. Particularly on a lunch
break, when I want to eat, sitting in a car doesn't make it very easy
to eat food.
the climate HAS changed before, and wiped out THE VAST MAJORITY OF LIFE
ON THE LANET in the process. So, why shouldn't we do everything we can
to try and sto it?
I know you are trying to make a point about man's influence on the climate.
That said, if we hit one of those wipe out style climate changes, we might be able to slow it down but we won't be able to stop it.
I haven't noticed people doing that, and haven't done that myself, but I agree >hat would be a weird thing to do. Particularly on a lunch break, when I want t
eat, sitting in a car doesn't make it very easy to eat food.
I'm a pessimist and, some would say, even a nihilist by nature. I'm not buying it. That's a defeatest attitude. As I said before, if we had that attitude we never would have landed on the moon, put a rover (or many rovers!) on Mars, built the atomic bomb or won WWII.
Tracker1 wrote to DaiTengu <=-
Resources are finite... would you rather find a cure for cancer,
or colonize the moon, or lower the projected temperature over the
next hundred years by -0.25 degrees (what all combined proposals
might do)?
My wife does that at work (but doesn't run the car unless she really needs to).
It's mostly to decompress after dealing with immature co-workers (or is that >spelled "cow-orkers"?) and not have to deal with them in the lunch room.
Tracker1 wrote to DaiTengu <=-
> I'm a pessimist and, some would say, even a nihilist by nature.
> I'm not buying it. That's a defeatest attitude. As I said before,
> if we had that attitude we never would have landed on the moon,
> put a rover (or many rovers!) on Mars, built the atomic bomb or
> won WWII.
Resources are finite... would you rather find a cure for cancer,
or colonize the moon, or lower the projected temperature over the
next hundred years by -0.25 degrees (what all combined proposals
might do)?
From that list, I'd choose a cure for cancer.
... A woman drove me to drink, and I never had the courtesy to thank her.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
> I'm a pessimist and, some would say, even a nihilist by nature.
> I'm not buying it. That's a defeatest attitude. As I said before,
> if we had that attitude we never would have landed on the moon,
> put a rover (or many rovers!) on Mars, built the atomic bomb or
> won WWII.
Resources are finite... would you rather find a cure for cancer,
or colonize the moon, or lower the projected temperature over the
next hundred years by -0.25 degrees (what all combined proposals
might do)?
From that list, I'd choose a cure for cancer.
I also choose cure cancer, however I feel it's one of those
battles that is so huge it's hard to say if any progress is being
made any given day.
Rocket science is more about defeating a series of technical
issues that are related to the goal. Cancer is catch all for
cellular disorders, each having it's own set of triggers.
Resources are finite... would you rather find a cure for cancer, or colonize the moon, or lower the projected temperature over the next hundred years by -0.25 degrees (what all combined proposals might do)?
Resources are finite... would you rather find a cure for cancer, or colonize the moon, or lower the projected temperature over the next
hundred years by -0.25 degrees (what all combined proposals might do)?
We're not doing any of those right now. Not at the levels we did in the past with the Mahattan Project, or the Moonshot.
Tracker1 wrote to DaiTengu <=-
On 3/30/2020 1:30 PM, DaiTengu wrote:
Resources are finite... would you rather find a cure for cancer, or colonize the moon, or lower the projected temperature over the next hundred years by -0.25 degrees (what all combined proposals might do)?
We're not doing any of those right now. Not at the levels we did
in the past with the Mahattan Project, or the Moonshot.
No we aren't... but taxes and spending are through the roof,
compared to inflation even before the human malware issues
lately.
What would you like to cut to make your suggestions happen,
without destroying the economy altogether?
What would you like to cut to make your suggestions happen, without destroying the economy altogether?
What would you like to cut to make your suggestions happen,
without destroying the economy altogether?
I'd like to start with:
1. Foreign Aid
2. Illegal alien support
3. Fraudulent welfare programs
Defense spending. Close loopholes for corporations like Amazon, Apple and GE which are effectively paying 0% tax on millions and millions of income. Stop handing out subsidies to giant corporations just to keep them afloat.
We could do a lot by just starting there.
I'd like to start with:
1. Foreign Aid
2. Illegal alien support
3. Fraudulent welfare programs
These are a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money we hand out to corporations and big businesses in this country.
I'd like to start with:
1. Foreign Aid
2. Illegal alien support
3. Fraudulent welfare programs
DaiTengu wrote to Gamgee <=-
These are a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money we hand out to corporations and big businesses in this country.
These are a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money we
hand out to corporations and big businesses in this country.
Spoken like a true Bernie supporter. All data shows otherwise.
The VAST majority of spending is for entitlement programs. Just reducing those back to what they were intended for would save much more money.
DaiTengu wrote to Dr. What <=-
I probably should have been more specific, I assumed people would understand that the government isn't techinically "giving money" to corporations, but giving them massive discounts on what they owe on
their tax bills instead.
Taking that into account, corporate subsidies dwarf "entitlement"
programs (not Social Security/Medicare, which are paid for by a
separate tax/fund).
Now, that said, our government has swung hard-left into "Socialism for everyone!" territory over the past month with this 2 Trillion dollar stimulus bill.
Now, that said, our government has swung hard-left into "Socialism
for everyone!" territory over the past month with this 2 Trillion
dollar stimulus bill.
Hmmm... I don't see the "Socialism for everyone" there.
I see Trump giving the public some of their money back. I don't see the socialist part in that.
Using your elitist tone again:
Using your elitist tone again:
I would assume that when someone talks about Socialism that they actually understand what Socialism is.
the $1200 per person bit isn't what I'm talking about.
The plan massively expands unemployment benefits for everyone, not just those a
fected by coronavirus layoffs/furloughs. The federal government is adding $600
per person, per month to their state-provided unemployment benefits through the
end of July, and the total duration is extended to 39 weeks. For those with red
ced hours it funds short-term compensation plans for states that don't have suc
a thing. It also adds paid leave benefits for those who get sick, which has his
torically been called "socialism" by Repulicans.
There is one slight difference. Those things being called "socialism" by Republicans, Libertarians, and others were being done during times when there was not a pandemic gripping the nation. They were usually being suggested or done by a person or group which had campaigned on socializing things in general.
There is one slight difference. Those things being called "socialism" by >DW> Republicans, Libertarians, and others were being done during times when >DW> there was not a pandemic gripping the nation. They were usually being
suggested or done by a person or group which had campaigned on socializing >DW> things in general.
So Socialism is OK if the Republicans implement it?
It's a scientific fact that the sun will expand and become a Red
Giant eventually, and engulf the earth. There's really no actual
doubt about that.
Zombie Mambo wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Re: Re: Likely 2020 outcome
By: Dumas Walker to GAMGEE on Sun Mar 22 2020 05:10 pm
It's a scientific fact that the sun will expand and become a Red
Giant eventually, and engulf the earth. There's really no actual
doubt about that.
What is the difference between a scientific fact, and a fact?
I am both curious, and concerned, that we could call something a fact
that is so far away from us. I would be more willing to accept admitted Assumption in lieu of stated fact in areas like this.
For example, is there no other possible future?
Is it not possbile that the sun will burn out?
Is it not possible that something could collide with it?
Is it not possible it could move, or something could happen to earth
prior to the Red Giant and Engulfing of Earth stages?
I mean, is it really scientific fact, or is it a hypothesis, or
assumption or best guess under extremely rigid circumstances?
I don't know. But when I hear statements like this it really makes me wonder.
Zombie Mambo wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Re: Re: Likely 2020 outcome
By: Dumas Walker to GAMGEE on Sun Mar 22 2020 05:10 pm
It's a scientific fact that the sun will expand and become a Red
Giant eventually, and engulf the earth. There's really no actual
doubt about that.
What is the difference between a scientific fact, and a fact?
The difference is two fold. First, a normal fact requires little scientific knowledge to grasp. Understand stellar evolution and lifecycles require more Scientific facts require a bit more than a high school education.
I am both curious, and concerned, that we could call something a fact that is so far away from us. I would be more willing to accept admitted Assumption in lieu of stated fact in areas like this.
The response goes to my first point about grasping scientific fact. Many tea exist in astrophysics who spend their lives studying stellar evolution to better grasp the subject and they learn new insights all the time. The point above, being scienetific fact, is strongly supported and accepted. Aerodynam are a set of theories too. Would anyone doubt them as fact? Both disciplines require the same process of investigation: the scientific method.
For example, is there no other possible future?
Is it not possbile that the sun will burn out?
The theory of stellar evolution dictates that it will leave the main sequenc become a red giant, then live the rest of its existence as a white dwarf surrounded by an expanding nebula. As a white dwarf, it will be 'burned out' since it will no longer sustain nuclear fusion.
Is it not possible that something could collide with it?
Objects collide with the sun all the time. Collisions are what made the sun what it is. But what do you mean by collide? And what would a collision supposedly do? Are you talking about another star? A planet? A black hole?
Is it not possible it could move, or something could happen to earth prior to the Red Giant and Engulfing of Earth stages?
Earth is hopelessly bound to the sun by gravitation. The only thing that cou kick the earth out of the sun's gravity well would require a force far exceeding the sun's gravity. Earth's velocity change would need to be so drastic as to render the Sun's massive pull irrelevant. If it's that large, would see it coming. Teams of astronomers are studying the skies for an obje that could wreak havoc on the earth's environment and life. We have satellit mapping the sky of large objects too. This attention has yielded discovery o interstellar objects that have whizzed into and out of our solar system. The were the first such events ever witnessed and wouldn't have been possible if people weren't looking.
The sun also moves constantly. It orbits the galactic center, Sag A*.
Here's a kicker, Andromeda is on a collision course with our galaxy. It may change our solar system that much but the night sky will change drastically.
I mean, is it really scientific fact, or is it a hypothesis, or assumption or best guess under extremely rigid circumstances?
A hypothesis is an assuption. Theories are extensively tested hypothesis to derive fact. All facts are rigid, otherwise they're not fact.
Thanks to Einstein, his famous equations broadened our scientific scope and understanding in a way no other scientist had ever done prior. I would argue that he surpasses Newton in impact. I can't count how many fields of study relativity gave birth to.
I don't know. But when I hear statements like this it really makes me wonder.
I'm glad you wonder. There's volumes of published work out there that can satisfy your wonder and the basic questions you have could be easily answere But you have start at square one. You can't start at square twenty and work backwards.
Daniel Traechin
... Visit me at gopher://gcpp.world
By: Dumas Walker to GAMGEE on Sun Mar 22 2020 05:10 pm
It's a scientific fact that the sun will expand and become a Red
Giant eventually, and engulf the earth. There's really no actual
doubt about that.
What is the difference between a scientific fact, and a fact?
I am both curious, and concerned, that we could call something a fact that is so far away from us. I would be more willing to accept admitted Assumption in lieu of stated fact in areas like this.[...]
I mean, is it really scientific fact, or is it a hypothesis, or assumption or best guess under extremely rigid circumstances?
On 05-08-20 09:07, Moondog wrote to calcmandan <=-
Neil deGrasse Tyson's remake of Cosmos has the knowledge you seek in a friendly to understand format. It's amazing two galaxies could
"collide" or pass through each other without any physical material crashing together.
On 05-08-20 10:55, Dumas Walker wrote to ZOMBIE MAMBO <=-
When I took science classes in school, we learned all about hypothesis, etc. We learned that a lot of stuff accepted as fact in space science
is really educated hypothesis, or guesses, that are generally accepted
as possible/likely fact based on current knowledge.
There is a lot of stuff in older science books that was accepted thusly but that has since been proven less likely or even false.
It seems to me these days that this scientific "gray area" has gone by
the wayside. Not sure if it is how people are educated, how people
have become more "black-and-white" thinkers, or if it is how the scientific community (or press) presents things, but it seems that everything a scientist says now should be taken as 100% fact.
It reminds me some of the whole Pluto/Planet 9 thing. There are scientists who are convinced there is a large Planet 9 out there but they've not actually proven it yet via any observations. They are
either presenting their hypothesis as fact, or the press is presenting
it as such. It is really only a hypothosis.
Moondog wrote to calcmandan <=-
On 05-09-20 06:38, calcmandan wrote to Moondog <=-
@VIA: VERT/DIGDIST
Moondog wrote to calcmandan <=-
Agreed and definitely. Even Sagan's original was captivating. Sof my fondest memories spending time with my dad was laying in bed with him watching cosmos at night. he'd come late from running business and that
my time with him. those early years brought a level of excitement for science i never wouldve gotten at screwl.
It seems to me these days that this scientific "gray area" has gone by the wayside. Not sure if it is how people are educated, how people have become more "black-and-white" thinkers, or if it is how the scientific community (or press) presents things, but it seems that everything a scientist says now should be taken as 100% fact.
When I took science classes in school, we learned all about hypothesis,
etc. We learned that a lot of stuff accepted as fact in space science is really educated hypothesis, or guesses, that are generally accepted as possible/likely fact based on current knowledge.
There is a lot of stuff in older science books that was accepted thusly but that has since been proven less likely or even false.
It seems to me these days that this scientific "gray area" has gone by the wayside. Not sure if it is how people are educated, how people have become more "black-and-white" thinkers, or if it is how the scientific community (or press) presents things, but it seems that everything a scientist says now should be taken as 100% fact.
There is a lot of hypothesis in science, waiting to be tested. Hypothesis itself is generally a good thing, because this is where questions come from that scientists will (hopefully) one day test through experiments and observation.
It reminds me some of the whole Pluto/Planet 9 thing. There are scientists who are convinced there is a large Planet 9 out there but they've not actually proven it yet via any observations. They are either presenting their hypothesis as fact, or the press is presenting it as such. It is really only a hypothosis.
That hypothesis is back again, but you're right, that's all it is.
I think it may be due to the way things are being presented in schools and >high-schools nowadays. They just give you a bunch of undisputable facts you are
supposed to learn by heart and that is it, at least in Spain. Heck, in some >exams, if you explain something using a different wording than used by the >class book, they take points off your score.
On 05-09-20 10:39, Dumas Walker wrote to VK3JED <=-
Agreed. I just don't like it when people quote scientific hypothesis
as fact. Those people, as you go on to point out, are often the press
or other non-scientists. :)
That hypothesis is back again, but you're right, that's all it is.
Yes, and I love how some people use it as fact to go on to justify some outlandish things, like the belief that this body apparently has some sentient qualities and/or is under the control of aliens. :)
What is the difference between a scientific fact, and a fact?
I am both curious, and concerned, that we could call something a fact that is so far away from us. I would be more willing to accept admitted Assumption in lieu of stated fact in areas like this.Based on observastions of other stars of similar sizes, and mathematics, no.
For example, is there no other possible future?
Is it not possbile that the sun will burn out?That is the sun burning out. it runs out of hydrogen to fuse in the core. The helium that's been created by the hydrogen fusion will collapse, causing the core to become denser and hotter. the ouer layers will cool and expand, which will turn the sun into a red giant. Those outer layers will swallow up Mercury, Venus and possibly Earth.
Is it not possible that something could collide with it?Unlikely. Even if Jupiter were to collide with the sun, it wouldn't make a difference. The sun is over 1000 times more massive than Jupiter.
Is it not possible it could move, or something could happen to earth prior to the Red Giant and Engulfing of Earth stages?
I mean, is it really scientific fact, or is it a hypothesis, or assumption or best guess under extremely rigid circumstances?
It reminds me some of the whole Pluto/Planet 9 thing. There are scientists who are convinced there is a large Planet 9 out there but they've not actually proven it yet via any observations. They are either presenting their hypothesis as fact, or the press is presenting it as such. It is really only a hypothosis.
DaiTengu wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Re: Re: Likely 2020 outcome
By: Dumas Walker to ZOMBIE MAMBO on Fri May 08 2020 10:55 am
It reminds me some of the whole Pluto/Planet 9 thing. There are scientists who are convinced there is a large Planet 9 out there but they've not actually proven it yet via any observations. They are either presenting their hypothesis as fact, or the press is presenting it as such. It is really only a hypothosis.
it's media. The "Planet 9" hypothesis is based on observations of trans-Neptunian objects. Modeling data shows that the orbits of these objects (such as Sedna, for example) makes sense if there is/was
another body that was about 10x the mass of earth (maybe a bit less) on
an elliptical orbit.
DaiTengu
... I have an existential map. It has 'You are here' written all over
it.
---
= Synchronet = War Ensemble BBS - The sport is war, total war - warensemble.com
I have heard of this too. People forget that it is DARK out there! Planets don't emit any significant radiation, either in the visible or radio spectrum, so the way you find it is the way you traditionally find anything. You have to spot it, and the only energy likely coming from it to enable detection, is the reflection of sunlight it receives, which out there isn't much at all.
I have heard of this too. People forget that it is DARK out there! Planets don't emit any significant radiation, either in the visible or radio spectrum,
so the way you find it is the way you traditionally find anything. You have t
spot it, and the only energy likely coming from it to enable detection, is the
reflection of sunlight it receives, which out there isn't much at all.
Dumas Walker wrote to DENNISK <=-spectrum,
I have heard of this too. People forget that it is DARK out there! Planets don't emit any significant radiation, either in the visible or radio
so the way you find it is the way you traditionally find anything. You havet
spot it, and the only energy likely coming from it to enable detection, isthe
reflection of sunlight it receives, which out there isn't much at all.
If it is as big as they claim/hypothesize it is, they should be able to see something.
On 05-13-20 17:27, Dennisk wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Yes, it would be detectable by telescope. Not easily, but it would be detectable. I don't know if there is another planet or not, but the
fact that it hasn't been found so far doesn't really prove anything
IMO.
I have heard of this too. People forget that it is DARK out there! Plane don't emit any significant radiation, either in the visible or radio spect so the way you find it is the way you traditionally find anything. You ha spot it, and the only energy likely coming from it to enable detection, is reflection of sunlight it receives, which out there isn't much at all.
If it is as big as they claim/hypothesize it is, they should be able to see something.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 05-13-20 17:27, Dennisk wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Yes, it would be detectable by telescope. Not easily, but it would be detectable. I don't know if there is another planet or not, but the
fact that it hasn't been found so far doesn't really prove anything
IMO.
If we go by the hypothetical information given - an orbit with
apohelion of 12000 AU, it will be extremely difficult to identify at or near apohelion (time wise, that's the majority of the orbit) for 2 reasons:
1. The weak sunlight at that distance.
2. The planet's slow orbital motion and resulting small angular motion will make it difficult to pick out from background stars.
On 05-14-20 09:28, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Unless we develop a new way of detecting objects of mass, I'm pretty certain this will remain speculative for the rest of my life.
Viewing objects in space is highly dependent on the instruments and the >medium it's recorded on. Shutters and aperatures adjustments have to be >critical, otherwise images will look dull and require some touching up to matc >h what the human eye perceives.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 05-14-20 09:28, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Unless we develop a new way of detecting objects of mass, I'm pretty certain this will remain speculative for the rest of my life.
I have a feeling a way will be found, though it may or may not be
within our lifetime.
On 05-15-20 13:01, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I think so too. Perhaps some way of better observing or detecting the curvature of spacetime. Perhaps variations in distribution of dark matter. I'm just wildly speculating here.
| Sysop: | MCMLXXIX |
|---|---|
| Location: | Prospect, CT |
| Users: | 325 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 57:19:35 |
| Calls: | 508 |
| Messages: | 220060 |
