Ten oz

"letting", has the number of U.S. citizens being captured or killed aboard decreased under Trump? Lifestyles always change. My grandmother was born in a home in Nebraska that didn't have electricity. I was born in a full service hospital. 70yrs ago owning a car , any car, was an affluent thing. Our (U.S.) policy toward immigration use to be “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. Everything changes, lifestyles change, you do not live the way your grandparents lived. As that applies to energy and economics; you do not use the same amount of energy, eat the same diet, produce the same amount of waste, or etc as your grandparents did nor with your grand kids mirror you. In context it is inaccurate and purposely misleading. The size of the crowds doesn't matter. These are battles Trump chooses to take on by making claims which aren't true. You are basically saying that everyone should ignore it for the sake of unity and find middle ground between Trump's lies and the truth. That isn't where middle ground can exist; between fantasy and reality. What has he got done? North Korea has escalated their nuclear program since Trump has been in office. That is a fact.

As tar's contradictions apply to this thread His electoral win was 46th out 58. It was one of the closer electoral wins in history. Claiming it was "substantial"is just another lie. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/18/us/elections/donald-trump-electoral-college-popular-vote.html Nope, already linked you Trump and Spicer specifically arguing about the physical crowd size. Arguing about tv ratings and etc was the pivot. How convenient. You see a virtue of sorts to his lying. Examples? The Senate voted in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner (98-2) to sanctions Russia for what they did during the election and Trump has been sitting on those sanctions and casting doubts about what actually happened. You approved of that? What has Trump accomplished with regards to Syria or ISIS? What is Trump's actually policy regarding North Korea? Trump's talk is loud but what is the actual policy? I am not impressed by Trump saying the U.S. will retaliate if North Korea attacks; no duh. Lifestyles change all the time. I use to have a hard line phone, VHS player, and a tower based computer. The average person use to never travel further than 20 miles from the place of there birth in a lifetime. Fear of change is useless and feeding on that fear to justify stagnation always leads to trouble.

tar posted the below illustration Jan 2016. It seems he was predicting his own future. democrat republican independent trump supporter http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89809-what-is-americas-biggest-problem/?page=21&tab=comments#comment-902878

Nope! Trump and his people where talking about in person.

There is a very strange dichotomy at play between what people honestly understand vs what they honestly want. For example: David Duke is an American white supremacist, white nationalist, and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan yet denies being racist "I don't consider myself a racist, I don't hate other peoples, but I certainly want to preserve my own. And I think that's true of all people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke David Duke understand that being racist is wrong so he denies that he is. I see this behavior all the time. People saying obviously racist things they insist they are not racist. In the case of what we see in this thread: Trump clearly denying climate change and tar claiming he didn't. There is a natural course correction which happens when one concedes they are doing something they shouldn't. In today's political environment many seem to be avoiding course correction by refusing to concede to obvious truths.

Realities of life isn't this thread's topic. This thread is about the lack of truth/facts in Political discussion. Swansont ask you for a citation to support a position you were asserting fact. Death and taxes isn't an appropriate response.

@ tar, nothing in your response to Swansont addresses your previous assertions. Swansont asked for citations from you to support your claims; not your philosophical views of government.

The Acting Attorney General Sally Yates questioned the legality of the travel ban. Trump fired her for it. Courts then proved her right by blocking the ban. Trump's administration then sent the ban through a few rewrites before it was able to temporarily go into effect. I don't see that as an example of a "deep state" conspiracy. The travel ban as initially conceived was unconstitutional. Yates had provided Trump good counsel.

Tar, you are in this thread posting about unsupported conspiracies. I have linked supporting info to every thing I have state. Start you own deep state thread. This isn't the place for it.

Negative 1, you are citing a conspiracy for which you have no evidence. More over the Senate, Republican (Trump's party) controlled Senate, voted 98-2 to sanction Russia for their actions against us during the 2016 Election. This isn't even a partisan issue. As for the transfer of power Republicans controlled the house and Senate during the Obama administration and currently control every branch.

My understanding (I do not work with solar) is that the intensity of light and duration of exposure are calculated. Some locations receive more direct light in the morning vs the afternoon and etc. Ideally panels should be located where light at its most powerful during the day is maximized. Solar panels are located where they will get the highest intensity for the longest duration of time and not merely where they will get light in general for the longest duration of time. Ultimately I think developing better storage is required. Using solar in real time isn't practical as using it via a battery.

Trump clearly says that temperature will go up and will go down as it has done for millions of years;" it is called weather". The remark is totally dismissive of man made climate change. There is also the tweet where Trump says China created it and there are Trump's own Press Sec unwilling to clarify. You are dishonestly playing with Trump own words. This is the sort of behavior this thread is about. You can't even admit Trump says what he in fact says. That is the state of politics today. You want me to accept your personal understand of what Trump meant to say rather than what Trump clearly says. It is a nonstarter. Trump knowingly denies, casts doubts, or ignores (Trump seldom answers the same question the same way twice) climate change so not to burden the economic side of his argument. Is that when Mueller is investing, a joke? Paul Manafort wasn't indicted for a joke. Papadopolous isn't indicted for a joke. Don Trump Jr wasn't communicating with wikileaks about a joke and didn't meet with Russians to discuss a joke. Jared Kushner didn't exclude a joke from his security clearance application and exclude a joke from the emails he turned over to the senate intelligence committee. A joke isn't why the Attorney General recused himself from investigations relating to Russia.

Those who can afford to do what is right should. As for the price the more alternatives are used better technologies and processes will be discovered and prices will fall. When flight was first developed only the wealthy could afford it. Same goes for everything from home computers to home A/C units. There was a time when only wealthy people could afford glass windows. Price points change rapidly. Lying about the downside to various technologies and processes is not useful to anyone. It doesn't help that billions of dollars have been invested to purposely confuse people. Those are billions of dollars which could have been invested in R&D or used to offset some of the extra cost so many fear are associated with alternative energy. You have worked with electronics and power distribution; as have I. We both know, I think, that enormous amounts of power is wasted. It is an aspect of this topic which is often overlooked. So often people get stuck debating the best ways to produce ever increasing amounts of energy to the exclusion of best practices for using energy. Which way a windows face in house or whether or not there are trees in a yard creating shade can make a big difference in how much heating or cooling a home needs. Location of windows and the types of surfaces in a home can greatly impact how much lighting is needed. There are many dimensions that can be discussed regarding the best way to use our resources while managing our economy.

You are posting your own feelings about what you choose to accept. Trump has denied that human caused climate change and his spokes people refuse to clarify. His pivot is to discuss the economy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGEzFbRl-g8 At the one minute mark O'Reilly asks Trump specifically if he believes if humans impact climate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uJCrYuZ7yI The WH's Press Sec won't say whether or not Trump believes human impact climate. So you are basically saying that is order to find middle ground I must accept your denials and deflections? Trump has denied climate and has denied Russia hacking in his own words many times. I could spend the day copying you links. Your refusal to acknowledge what is so plainly and painfully true is a major barrier to middle ground.

If you read the post I was responding to it was about jobs. The poster was saying that fear of losing employment was the issue. Your reply isn't addressing my post in context.

Perhaps Al Franken would have been better of calling the picture a "locker room" picture and bringing Roy Moore's accusers with him to a press conference? Obviously nothing others did or do justify Franken's actions. They were wrong. He is paying a price and will surely pay it in every election for the rest of his political career. That said I just hope those offended by Franken stay consistent. Being offended only by those decent enough to apologize mustn't become the status qou.

No where have I said there should be leniency. I clearly stated that if there is a statue he can be charged on it should be pursued . My point is that people shouldn't pile on because it is easier to pile onto him than others. Those who deny create a strain where it becomes uncomfortable to comment about. There are others who have done worse yet have an army of apologists and defenders who are enabled and often embolden by the denials. I think there is a level of moral /outrage laziness to focus on Franken, who has responded with more decency than most, while being timid on about the actions of others because they punch back. It creates a moral equivalency which doesn't exist. What Franken did was wrong, bad, and if a crime let the justice system work. That said there are others accused of worse who we aren't discussing by name at all and who do not have thread on this site devoted to the sexual misconduct they have been accused of. I think most of us on this site are aware that tit for tat whatabout arguments are cheap, deflective, and petty so at this point we're avoiding pivoting with additional threads about other people for the sake of our own intellectual integrity. That said I hope that those who feel moved to speak out against Franken stay consist across the board in all other cases. As for your comment about what would happen at work if a similar picture came out, context matters; Franken wasn't in the Senate at the time of that picture. Would your employer fire you over a picture taken years prior to your employment despite the fact you had never been charged with any any crime or had any formal legal investigation launched? I do not believe mine would.

Considering the level denial, conspiracy, victim blaming, whataboutism, woe is me syndrome, and bold face lying we are seeing from others I think it is useful to highlight that Franken has responded the right way. If Franken's reward for respectfully apologizing is to be tarred and feathered while others who deny, deny, deny skate by it simply encourage further denials. Franken is open to being held accountable; that is what we should expect and demand from these people. It is significantly more useful than denial which by its nature casts doubts on the women who report and in politics makes matters cripplingly partisan. If there are statues at play here where Franken can be charged with a crime I am all for Tweeden pressing charges. Franken doesn't deserve a pass. He should be held accountable to the full letter of the law. I just don't think piling on because he was honest enough to apologize is good for anything especially when those who are accused of worse bathing in it. Media loves to represent both sides of a story. Can't have a climate scientist on without having a climate denier on at the same time and etc. When someone denies something media makes equal time guilt and innocence. It creates a level of parity which often isn't earned. By admitting to wrong doing Franken has forgone that equal time standard and basically tossed himself to the wolves without the safety blanket of bothsides equal media time B.S.. It is a very weak position he has put himself in and as a result less forceful opposition is required. There is no white noise of denial, lies, and deflections to shout through.

What Franken did was wrong. I didn't say otherwise. This is similar to what we saw all through the 2016 Election cycle; Clinton's email use was wrong and somehow that made her wrongs and Trump's wrong a wash. I think it is important not to do that. What Weinstein did is multitudes worse than what Franken did. Being able to identify that shouldn't be an apoligist position.

What Franken did was wrong. He admitted it and isn't making any excuses. I think it is important not to apathetically treat every situation of a famous person being outed for bad behavior as equal. Unlike others (Weinstein, Moore, C.K., Stallone, Trump, etc) Franken isn't being accused of Rape, molestation, public masterbation, or etc. What Franken did was a misdemeanor at most and not felon behavior. Neither the picture or the kiss would send someone to prison. The behavior is bad and women are too often objectified in society but we shouldn't lower the bar at the top end for those perpetrating heinous criminal acts by pretend all bad acts however large or small are the same.

Sadly those willing to be honest will be honest will be vilified while those without either honesty of regret with cling to plausible deniability. We must not overly persecute the truthful in order to make up for the shameless and dishonest.

I don't think the Constitution was amazing. I don't think the founders even cared much about most people. Many things in the Constitution are designed for the rich and power to be protected from each other and the masses more so than the little guy have equity. I am just thinking in terms of what's possibly legislatively today. No progressive or aggressive reworking would make it through Congress. In my opinion agreeing to a second of voting or automatic recounts (we didn't get Recounts in swing states 16') in the event that the popular vote and electoral college split would be a step forward.

Ultimately people need to be more responsible with their vote. No system is stupid electorate proof and in places like Alabama allowing for all seats at once could lead to an utter calamity on leadership.

Most ballots have more than 2 options. Perhaps rank choice voting would be a good idea? http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits

The electoral college is in the Constitution. It isn't going anywhere in the foreseeable future in my opinion. Making incremental changes is more realistic than a total rewrite. As for the 2 party system; no one has to participate in the Primaries or vote a party line. I personally do not feel the two major parties have failed. I like Walter Mondale. I don't think losing an election automatically means a politician is flawed. I think Jimmy Carter is one of the best Presidents ever. I also thing the first Bush was good and the last true Republican that governed in the many the party advertises. The issue in my opinion isn't with the candidates the party comes up but is with us stupid voters. Just look at the race in Alabama this Roy Moore still probably wins; same on each person who votes for him.