Ten oz

Hillary Clinton got 2.9 million more votes than did Donald Trump. To simply frame this as what "voters" did or didn't consider isn't accurate. Hillary Clinton got more votes which means more individual voters sought to elect her than did Donald Trump. So while voters do have the right to consider various bits of information voters as a total collection do not determine the outcome of a Presidential election. It they did Donald Trump would have lost. Trump promoted fruadulent claims. After being breifed by intelligence that the hacks were Russian Trump said in speeches, interviews, and debates that the hacks may have been the work of China. So while people are free to consider all information the challange for them to do so was purposely made difficult by Trump and his supporters who knowingly pushed false information. Jullian Assange, I have 2 issues with hacking: The first is ethics, how is this information vetted and what is the standard for the leakers? If a whistleblower reaches out to the New York Times the reporter who gets the information is credentialed. They have standards they operate by. Jullian Assange does not. Secondly, context is very important in my opinion. If you read someones hacked email, stolen texts, or whatever you do not know what protion of the full conversation it represents. I can spend 2 hours a day for week discussing something with someone in person, send them a email that plays devil's advocate against a position I have pushed, and then another round of face to face conversation may follow. Simply reading a hacked email doesn't provide context or insight one can rely on. Understand the relationship of the people communicating, the percentage of the total conversation you are seeing, the total being involved in the conversation, and etc are all important things which aren't obvious when just reading someones emails.

It is about racism. Pro Aryan beliefs are seeded throughout Western and Eastern Europe well as Northern America. The allure of lands belonging to whites, traditions of a nation having white ownership, whites being the heartland of society, and etc are ones that have many sympathizers and to an extent it seems to transcend borders. In my opinion when the Republican party embraced pro segregation bigots after the Civil Rights Act they made a calculated mistake. As a result it is no coincidence that during & following the successful service of our first non-white male president we have seen the GOP erode into facsim. The Tea Party primary and bullied traditional republicans over the last couple of midterms and have successfully created a party that isn't interested in governing the United States of America but rather are more interested in changing it fundamentally. This is basically a cold burning coup. The GOP has lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 general elections yet somehow control every branch of the federal govt and the majority of the individual state seats.

One major problem I see is that no standard is identified to hold one accountable to. Everything is reflexive. Media waits for things to happen and than discusses the pros and cons. Having a PEOTUS whom has willfully cooperates with a foriegn govt to the benefit of that govt at the belittlement of the people of the U.S., violates federal neputism policy, staff has violated the Logan Act, has nurmerous conflicts of interest, and a Congress unwilling to enforce the law against their own are clearly all things a responsible media has an obligation to soberly report on with more clarity than a pro/con dicusssion panel of partisan pundits. Just because Trump says the Intelligence is wrong doesn't mean his loose unsupported claims deserve equal time yet they get it plus some. It seems the GOP has decided allowing Putin to manipulate our politics is okay so longs as it benefits them. How long the rest of the country tolerates it is anyones guess. It is scary. It seems to me (most people) that Putin is a more thought out and intelligent person than is Donald Trump. I don't believe anyone understand why Putin favors Trump. Many have reasonable speculations but the realities no one know for sure but Putin himself. The media is so caught up in the Trump created narrative of maybe/maybe not that why simple isn't explored enough. Hillary Clinton was polling to win. The majority of people whose job it is to predict these things believed Hillary Clinton would win. Putin was taking a large risk. Such a large risk taken by such a well thought out person implies that something was either known which mitigated the risk or something worth the risk was available to be gained. Either way it's bad for us.

Trump will be the President. If the President says the New York Times, CNN, CBS, or whomever can't be trusted than where is one to get information? It creates a state where reality isn't something mutually shared any longer. I live in Washington but don't attend govt breifings, eat lunch with my congress rep, and etc. I need to be able to trust media to an extand to know what is happening. Everyone does.

@ proximity1 you don't find any irony in the fact that you a thread you started to complain that mods overly censor members has now gone 8 pages?

That would be great. However importance and money are often just extensions of peoples egos. There are millions of people in this world who have more money than they will ever spend yet seek more as a matter of pride. Many wealthy people like Laurene Powell Jobs and Bill Gates realize the value of other people and through philanthropy attempt to promote the value of everyone. Unfortunately many others like Donald Trump see everything as a competition: rich people are winners and poor people are losers, rich people are smart and poor people are stupid, rich people are important and poor people are not.

Warp drive works fine too. Ending abuse and getting people to agree to a peaceful world where everyones basic needs get met are separate challanges. One is an individual issue and the other would be delt with structurally by world govts. There is a plethora of disorders people can be genetically predisposed to. As a result people will have parents, uncles, brothers, sisters, spouses, and etc who are depressed, addicts, bipolar, schizophrenic, obsessive compulsive, and etc. Growing up in a home with parents that suffer from anxiety, narcissism, attachment disorder,and etc can create negative environments for children. There is a good argument to be made that many mental disorders would be greatly reduced in a peaceful and cooperative world but to say they wouldn't exist is to deny the genetic component involved in health. So we'd still face individuals that manifest impatience, hatred, violence, racism, sexism, greed, and etc. As such saying that you believe Donald Trump suffered abuse doesn't change anything. People like him would still exist.

That is besides the point I was making. I also don't know if it is correct to assume Trump suffered any abuse. We (humans) are animals and alpha males exist through nature. Trumps compulsions appear basic and primitive.

Donald Trump was born into one of the most wealthy families in the world. All his material needs have been met his whole life. The only pressure that exist in his life is that which he manifests. Some people simply do not want the world peaceful world. They want more than others. Everything is a competition. If the standard wait for an elevator is one second then want an elevator in 0.5 seconds.

They can't get one Republican vote, muchless three.

The building I work in has 2 elevator banks. Each bank has an independent call button. The majority of people (nearly everyone) push buttons for both banks when waiting. This occupies both banks with a single persons request yet a single person cannot use both banks at once. As a result it is common when riding on the elevator for it to make nurmerous stops at multiple floors where there are no passengers waiting any longer. By calling both banks makes the banks operate slower and provide worse service for everyone. Yet the temptation to call both elevator banks in hopes of getting an elevator sooner is too tempting for people to resist. A peaceful world requires a world where individuals don't seek personal advantage or convenience over each other. That seems nearly impossible. People circle parking lots and often stop in the middle of a row to get parking spots they considered more desirable. This increases accidents, makes parking more difficult, an creates an overall worse experience for everyone involved and yet it happens everywhere. People seem to naturally error on what they can have or get within any situation over the greater good to society at large. Many of the worlds greatest atrocities happened because people where seeking convenience. To an extent that is one of the drivers of slavery. People forcing others to do work they don'tt want to do themselves. I don't know how that complusion can be removed from society. We have monetized it where we can allowing people with means to pay for better seats on planes, valet parking, rooms with better views, toll roads to avoid traffic, prioty memberships to avoid lines, and etc but ultimately people compete for advantage over each seemingly in every facet of life.

Democrats do not have the vote in Congress (either house) to stop Trump. Unfortunately 2018 midterms don't look promising as more Democratic seats are up than Republican ones. The Democrats will be lucky not to lose more seats. In my opinion to combat Trump Democrats need to focus on individual states. There are several key gubernatorial races in 2018 that would greatly empower Democrats against Trump. Two of the most critical are AZ and TX. If Democrats can win one or both of those states, in combination with CA (an almost guaranteed win) Democrats could easily blunt Trump immigration plan. With Democratic Governors incharge of the border states they could sue and fight policy without needing to rely on Congressional support. Other key states gubernatorial races in 2018 are WI, OH, GA, and FL. All are swing states. Some combination of them will be needed in 2020. Winning govenorships in those states would help Democrats blunt voter supression in those states. More people being able to vote almost always help Democrats.

Iraq post the U.S. invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein was never stable. The "vacuum" left by U.S. troops leaving is often cited for enabling violence but 05' & 06' were two of the most violent and deadly years in Iraq. Violence in Iraq did not become appreciably worse after 2009. It was during the most violent years of the Iraq War refugees and rebels/terrorists/enemy combatants (whatever label) poured into Syria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War In the early days of the Iraq War the U.S. Govt (Bush Admin) had Syria in their crosshairs. In the lead up to the Iraq war we (USA) accussed Syria of haboring terrorist, then imposed sanctions against Syria in 04', and in 06' started supporting anti Assad organizations within Syria. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/world/bush-imposes-sanctions-on-syria-citing-ties-to-terrorism.html http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1571751,00.html In my opinion the problems truly go back further than that. The Partioning of the Ottoman Empire that created Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine was done poorly. The issues in the Middle East have a long background and plenty of blame. Far too many layers to fit into President-Elects 140 character world view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empire At this point though all we can do is focus on what we do next. No time machines exist to allow us to go backwards. Currently I am concerned about Turkey. It appears that President-Elects policy towards Syria will be to let Russia handle it. Which means Pro-Assad forces crush rebels. As that happens many will flee into Turkey. With a population a few times larger than Syria's the risks of war/terrorism/rebellion in Turkey would create a larger world crisis than Syria has.

I agree fully with your post. The challange I see is that pseudoscientific drivel does have a platform whether it is allowed in this thread or not. Here in the United States we just elected a man to lead the country (largest military in the world) who regularly promotes pseudoscientific drivel and wild conspiracies. The Brexit vote has similar leaders. It isn't practical to not allow that which is the majority belief and shapes policy. Terrifying to consider but climate deniers, creationists, bigots, and etc appear to be in the majority; at least far as power and influence are concerned. How can we (not this forum specifically) ignore climate change denial if it is the law of the land? How can we blame a young student for starting a thread in the lounge claiming Barrack Obama isn't a citizen when it is a notion popularised by a President-elect? These are very difficult times. I certianly do not have the answers. I think all media is attempting to figure this out currently. Trying to understand what the truth looks like in 2017 when pseudoscientific drivel goes viral daily. To be clear I am not advocating for any specific rules to be changed here. I agree the mods here do a good job. I just see many challanges ahead, Not merely for this forum but for every type of resource humans have for information.

You mean the existence of one enviromentalist whom can be legitimately targeted can be used to attack all related science? Not all hydroelectricity comes from dams. There are also pump storage plants and micro hydro electric systems. Asking for posters to name dams to prove not everyone is anti hydroelectric tech is like demanding we name individual airlines companies to prove were aren't anti flying.

I think the Mods here do a good job. Comments I have made in this thread are not directed at this forum broadly but rather the individual arguments presented. At the same time, unfortunately, whacko conspiracy does need to be confronted. If someone legitimately doesn't understand climate science (easy to understand how when even the President of the United States denies it) members having the patience to explain can be valuable. Obviously it is balance. The whole site can't just be posters claiming Alien lizard people are taking over. I have been on other forums where the mods have yielded to complaints and loosened up on the rules, it doesn't work. There are always a number of posters who are entertained by insults and contraian remarks who take over discussion and harass away posters. Last man standing syndrone. I have seen forums go from hundreds of members down to a dozen in the span of months as legit discussion is replaced by sarcasm and personal attacks. Temporary bans, moving threads, and etc in my opinion is the best way to deal with those who violate the rules because it teaches those posters to follow the rules and over time those contraians have the chance to become housebroken.

I also explained the difference is a few different posts. Yes, which is why I said I disagree with the OP and think the mods here do a good job. My comments in no way support the OP. I have already responded to proximity 1 directly in this thread saying that I disagreed with the OP. Our discussion is separate from that. I am objecting to the notion that those who wish to discuss things most of us find objectionable should leave and start their own thread. Obviously insults don't belong here but we all have done it. I have called posters ignorant in posts. The issue really isn't about insults much as it is context. This thread despite being started on a notion I disagree with may still be useful to proximity1 provided (s)he learns something from it.

What honest discussion is off the table? Via philosophy and psychology nearly anything fits into a science discussion. It is a matter of context. Whether the poster is attempting to have a discussion and draw out information or just preaching. This isn't a bakery rather than a sport goods store. It is a market for knowledge and thought. That is where science comes from. How we got from Socrates to Lawrence Krauss. Nothing should be "off the table" in my opinion. I agree "civil discourse" is the aim and that is where the insults failed. Which is why I disagree with proximity1's complaint. I feel the moderators here do a good job. However I don't think "start your own site" is appropriate. All types of discussion fit it is the manner in which ones posts that is the issue.

And yet you have been free to discuss those comments. Perhaps the problem wasn't the specific words but rather the fact that they weren't meant to advance a discussion? Having a lounge which allows for members to discuss a broad range of topics freely isn't the same thing as hosting generalized insults. If I started a thread in the lounge and in the OP posted "Anyone who responds to this thread is stupid" I suspect the mods would lock it because such statements do not prompt discussion.

Where in my post did I say that I or anyone else was offended? I said the remark is an insult. Calling people closed minded certianly isn't a compliment. It is a negative comment which doesn't advance discussion as it wasn't directed at a specific poster or post but rather the site broadly. The degree to which anyone may or may not have been offended is irrelevant.

No it doesn't. However such a remark insults the site broadly. To say you find people here close minded implies most or the majority. It would be better, in my opinion (imo), to qoute the specific comments you take issue with and address them directly. Key word in "discuss life, work, school, anything" is "discuss". Broad sweeping insults isn't a useful way to discuss things. if it were "comment on life, school, anything" than you'd be more on point. However the invitation is for discuss and not merely broad sweeping remarks.

The mods do a good job here. Nothing in my response was meant to imply otherwise. I was commenting on the challanges faced in general, broadly. However I personnally do not like the "start your own site" approach. Such can be applied to anything. Male store owners could refuse to serve females and just say females should open their own store to shop at. It isn't always practical and creates barriers that aren't always justified. Currently starting ones own blog is rather simply but that may not always be the case. While this site has no obligation to give anyone a platform it is a discussion forum and people will disagree and have differing views. Posters like Proximity1 and their complaints are a cost of doing business. So a process to manage that does need to exist and in my opinion "start your own site" is sort of a punt. All that said this site is well managed and I do not feel censorship is a problem here.

In my experience the mods on this site do a good job. There is a legit argument to be made that there ultimately should be some avenue to express opinions free from rules/standards/approval of mods whom themselves are only human and too are capably of error and bias. This is a challange I think all discussion on the internet is currently facing. With the rise of fake news (intentionally fake info meant to distract, confuse, and mislead) free speech has becomes more difficult to define. While free speech is something most people value it is also understood to have limits. I am not entitled to scream "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" on a plane as doing so endangers the safety of others. To various degrees fake information also endangers people. This challange of moderating speech while still allowing all opinions to be expressed is one twitter, facebook, instagram, yahoo, message boards, youtube, and etc, etc, etc are all faced with. This a science site. Discussion here is meant to be evidence based. Obviously different people can see evidence differently and room should exist for different points of views but the mods do have responsibility to keep discuss from turning into the racist insult denial p0rn we see all across the internet on other sites. Honest thoughts shouldn't be censored. My advice to you Proximity1 is to ensure you acknowledge which statements you make are factual vs opinion. I have seldom seen posts censored where the poster distinguished their own feelings from facts. Typically it is when a poster implies something which is provably false or is posting as fact without the ability to back it with citation that they are censored.

Jet Turbines compresses air which is then exposed to a flame (burning jet fuel), the resulting combustion causes a rapid expansion as the exhaust exits the turbine which used as thrust. At altitude the air is very cold. The turbine exhaust is very hot air of a higher moisture concentration than the surrounding air and rapidly cools which creates a crystalized trail of water vapor. That is it. Every jet is the sky doesn't have trails because they all fly are various altitudes. A jet needs to be at high altitude where the air is very cold and vapor levels are low to produce trails.

I disagree. Despite the generally accepted line that all politicians lie all actually don't and the ones who do vary in degree. politicians are people and different people have different thresholds for shame. Trump can't be embarrassed and appears, in my opinion, to be without shame. That isn't a trait I feel is an appropriate one to be describe in the positive. It reflects poorly on his supporters. It shows them to be dishonest as they are willing to accept lies. Bad lies at that. Trump is not even a good enough liar for it to be plausible that his supporters believe his lies. China is an emerging economy and heavily relies on fossil fuel. China relies on dirty energy to a greater degree than the U.S.. Yet Trump says Climate Change is a Chinese hoax(?)! Potential international agreements to reduce greenhouse gases would be harder on China than the U.S.. As a lie Trump's remarks are nonsensical and if truly meant as a joke inappropriate and unfunny. Trump isn't a good liar. His base simple doesn't care. It is sport. Their team made it to the Superbowl. They will cheer their team on during the game no matter what.