Ten oz

There is a difference between the limits of what humans understand and the true limits of the universe. Models aside I think the real tests of speed, gravity, and so on will be done when human colonies are physically separated by larger distances than we have yet achieved. For example on its closet approach Mars is merely 3 minutes away at light speed.

When I was a young kid back in the early 90's several people at the local high school were going around blowing up garbage cans with pipe bombs. They weren't using the internet to figure out how to build their explosives. I have never built an explosive device nor do I currently have any idea how to specific build one. However I assume, perhaps naively, I would be able to build a rudimentary one easily if I bothered to try without the use of the internet. For those who would take the time to educate themselves and invest the time and money in constructing an explosive I don't think availability of specific information on the internet is a limiting factor.

A simulated universe wouldn't be able to exist equal to or larger than the universe it was created within. Identifying artificial, designed, or otherwise imposed limits would be a clue.

And yet "her emails" is the sort of baggage Hillary Clinton's name carries. Even some Sanders supporters on the left complain about her emails and how they exposed a twist political scheme to win the primary.

I didn't mean to imply you deny Climate Change. Rather I was just giving you an example of how something aligning more with one political party than another doesn't automatically make it bias. What I think you are missing here is that Trump himself is the catalyst for his own press. Trump purposefully conducts public feuds with people. It is his thing. He was a reality star before this and public fights were always his thing. Take all the Storm Daniels stuff Stormy is not a Democrat and Democrats are not responsible for the Stormy coverage. Stormy is a pornography actress that Trump slept with and pay offed. Trump calling Stormy Horseface and her calling him tiny back and forth has nothing to do with Political bias. Likewise for Trump firing people like Omarosa. It was Trump who hired Omarosa. She is not a Democrat. All of her coverage and their public feuding has nothing to do with Democrats. Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein are Republicans and both were appointed by Trump. All the threats and insults lobbed at them by Trump has nothing to do with Democrats. Heck, Bob Mueller is a Republican and his investigation was greenlit by Republicans in the DOJ that Trump appointed. It was Trump own Sec of State that call Trump a moron and who Trump later chose to fire via twitter. These are public spectacles of Trump's own creation. Subtract that stuff away from the equation here and what is CNN really doing to help Democrats, nothing. I'd argue they are helping Trump. Have you ever heard the showbiz saying "all press is good press"? Trump baits CNN because Trump loves being the lead story. If CNN stopped doing negative Trump stories tomorrow Trump himself would be upset about it in my opinion. Don't let it fool you. In an environment where Trump himself is creating feuds between himself and apolitical figures like reality stars, pron stars, athletes, and etc it simple isn't accurate to conflate all media coverage of Trump with political bias. Democratic based attacks and Democrats support occupies very little space in the U.S. news media currently. Another example of a seemingly politically bias Trump feud which actually isn't would be Colin Kaepernick and the whole issue of athletes and the national anthem. It is in the news a bit and Trump enjoys complaining about athletes at his rallies. It seems very partisan charged............ but it actually isn't. Colin Kaepernick is no Democrat. Keapernick's position is anti both Democrat and Republican equally. Trump simply has made the whole thing about himself because that is what he does.

Trump tweets attacks against CNN and gifs off himself beating up CNN. Trump himself singles CNN out to publicly brawl with. That plus the fact that Trump is a notorious liar is the root cause for his negative coverage by CNN. It isn't rooted in political bias for as I can tell or for as you have been able to provide examples of. Climate science is more aligned with Democrats. That doesn't mean climate scientists is bias. You are making loose unsupported associations. Nearly 70% of the U.S. supports stricter gun control, Here. One doesn't have to be politically bias to have a positive take on gun control. You are claiming equivalent political bias so examples of politic bias would be the useful types of examples.

I don't have cable and haven't watched CNN in a few years. From what I have seen online CNN is definitely negative towards Trump. That dispute doesn't seem exclusively politically motivated to me though as Trump regularly attack CNN at rallies and on Twitter. The two seem to have a childish beef going that Trump started and CNN continues for rating. No, I don't think it is in support of the Democratic party.

It is a question. Asking you if negative Trump sentiment is equal to partisan pro-Democrat sentiment isn't any sort of an equivalency. The example you provided wasn't one of CNN being pro-Democrat. It was an example of them being negative toward Trump. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive but they also aren't one in the same either. You are insisting that CNN is pro-democrat is an equivalent manner to the way FoxNews is pro-Republican yet Democrats aren't watching CNN at nearly the same levels Republicans watch FoxNews and you have yet to provide an example of CNN being pro-Democrat.

Here the equivalency you are making seems clear. FoxNews is in the bag for Republican and CNN is in the bag for Democrats. Due to the previous statement I assume the "bias" you are referencing is Republican/Democrat? The link is Negative Trump coverage but there is nothing pro-Democrat. Are you saying all negative Trump sentiment is pro-Democratic? If so than Nicki Haley, Colin Powell, John McCain, John Kasich, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and many other Republicans who have publicly ridiculed Trump are are actually pro-Democrat. Separately Republicans follow FoxNews to a significantly greater degree than Democrats follow CNN.

Here is a list of Foxnews employees and contributors literally hired by Trump: John Bolton, Mercedes Schlapp, Scott Brown, Richard Grenell, John D. McEntee, Tony Sayegh, K.T. McFarland, Georgette Mosbacher, and Anthony Scaramucci, Here. Former FoxNews Chairman Roger Ailes helped Trump prep for debtaes, Here. Trump Jr is dating former FoxNews commutator Kimberly Guilifoyle, Here Trump has done more interviews with FoxNews than all other media outlets combined a few times over, Here ....and then there is stuff like Trump live tweeting FoxNews shows, directing people via twitter to watch various FoxNews Programs, complementing FoxNews at rallies, and etc. There is nothing equivalent happening on CNN that I am aware off. I don't have cable and don't watch either CNN or FoxNews but am aware of the manner in which Foxnews has literally been integrated into Trump's White News. Nothing like it exists over at CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN, or etc. Can you provide examples of Clinton, Holder, Obama, or whomever on the left tweeting gifs of them punching or body slamming FoxNews, live tweeting CNN shows, citing CNN at campaign rallies, and etc, etc, etc??? If it is truly equivalent you'll be able to provide examples.

FoxNews is the tip of the spear for Republican messaging. There is no Democratic equivalent. Barrack Obama never had regular evening phone chats with Rachael Maddow as Trump does with Sean Hannity.

Ironically MigL was worried about character assassination just a couple of weeks ago for a conservative up for a lifetime appointment yet is now engaging in it against Khashoggi.

Yep, those poor Republicans. Nevermind they control every branch of the govt.

Can you cite some of Khashoggi's work? It is you who started a thread in here about Khashoggi and not Faisal Devji. You called Khashoggi a hack. It would be great if you could actively participate in the discussion you started rather than telling people to use Google and copying and pasting whole op-eds written by others.

I think this happens but is more of a permanent tipping point than an election cycle to cycle occurrence. One may grow to become more conservative as they age or vice versa. It is possible Trump has cause some moderate women to reach that point. However I suspect Trump has also cause many alt right men who were voting weren't voting at all to do the same. Bill Clinton had 8yrs and those years are broadly viewed as among the best in the last century. Obama had 8yrs and both here at home and abroad he is noted as supremely competent. Yet both Clinton and Obama (despite good approval #'s) were followed by idiots. It is nonsensical. I understand you hope about values mattering more than party but I am struggling to identify which values those might. Regardless of what happens on election the day after Trump will claim victory and the media narratives will dare us to consider whether or not Trump is right.

I may a lot of pointed statements based on my opinions but believe I do decent job at attempting to explain my thoughts without a lot of fluff or gamesmanship. I try to be straight forward. Whether it is false equivalency or any other logical fallacies I think the problem is that some posters are actively trying to obfuscate matters. In some cases it is a defense strategy to avoid criticism while other times it is just an unwillingness to consider an issue at anymore length. Provided a person understands why they feel the way they do about an issue no logical fallacies should be necessary. Why is it allowed, I assume, is because we are emotional creatures and everyone processes information differently. Some people are naturally defensive or self pitying. Communication isn't purely about expressing ones honest thoughts. It can also be used to influence the manner in which ones thoughts are understood and some posters by habit are simply more focus on the later.

How many legitimate recounts did we get in 2016..........

In the U.S. political blowouts are impossible. Despite the worst economic collapse of our lifetime and Bush's approval rating being in the 20's The Republican ticket still got 45.7% of the popular vote in 2008. That is amazing when you consider Trump won in 2016 with 46.1%. Less than half percentage point of the vote difference. People vote party and nothing that is actually happening changes how they vote. I am sick and tired of reading about the all important independents and how they decide elections. I think it is total bullsh!t. Turnout decides elections. If turnout is up Democrats win and if turnout is down Republicans win. That is it. If I was running a campaign turnout would be my only focus. When asked about taxes, immigration, climate, or etc I would simply respond with a rant about the importance of turnout. It is no secret which is why throughout red states they push voter ID laws, limit early voting, and work to reduce polling location. So it trying to predict who comes out ahead in this election we must also try to predict what impact various laws will have on turnout county by county and that isn't an assessment I am able to make. “The African-American community was great to us. They came through, big league. Big league. And frankly if they had any doubt, they didn’t vote, and that was almost as good because a lot of people didn’t show up, because they felt good about me.” - Trump

I don't like the set up for this discussion. The OP calls Khashoggi a hack Journalist and then as support merely tosses out the Muslim Brotherhood as if we all should accept and understand anyone who gets associated with the Muslim Brotherhood is obviously bad. When asked to elaborate MigL responded "google search of J Khashoggi and the Muslim Brotherhood". We can have a better discussion than this. @MigL , Khashoggi was a journalist in Saudi Arabia until 2017. From within Saudi Arabia he spent his career advocating that women should have equal rights as men, public should have free expression, and that secularism should be tolerated. Relative to the the Country he lived and worked in Khaskoggi's views aligned with Western views fairly well which is why when he fled Saudi Arabia he came to the West. Khashoggi's final column was titled " What the Arab world needs most is free expression" and centered around the need for free expression in the Arab world which is a position all Western Democracies support, Canada included. As the Saudi govt searches for excuses and the U.S. govt searches for reasons to accept those excuses a propaganda campaign has been launched to besmirch Khashoggi. Considering Khashoggi was a published Journalist it shouldn't be difficult for you to link articles written by him outlining his positions you find objectionable or to be examples of "hack" journalism. I posted his final article and recommend you read it. It isn't very long.

What most people expect to happen is for Democrats to win the House and Republicans to keep the Senate. For me though anything seems possible. Reading about what's happening in places like GA makes me think this could be 2016 all over and despite polling Republicans eek out improvable wins with anomalously low margins for victory. A landslide for Democrats seems like the longest shot as too much is stacked against them. They have far more Senate races they need to win just to stay even and simply winning more votes hasn't seemed to be enough in the past. I think for sure Democratic candidates will get more votes but that is all I know. It is anyone's guess how those votes translate into seats.

My mistake. I meant "are not".

Sessions and Rosenstein are toast after the mid-terms. There is a good change "sort of a Democrat" Mattis, Kelly, Sanders, and mnuchin are all gone as well.

For the same reason a Road isn't called Earth.

1 - This has been an issue since before 2016 and the Russian propaganda attacks. In 2000 Republicans successfully stole an elections and then introduced partisan money masquerading as unaffiliated grass roots to swift boat Kerry in 04'. The system has been compromised for decades. I think 2016 just shed light on how compromised it is. 2 - It seems a substantial portion of the U.S. legitimately hates other portions of the U.S.. From stand your ground laws, the death penalty, "let them die" stance on healthcare, and so on it seems clear to me many within the U.S. would straight up like to see many of their fellow citizens F#&% off and die. That might read like hyperbole but in a political environment where actual Nazis literally hold rallies and aren't condemned universally by all the threshold for what's hyperbole has been significantly raised. I don't think it is about distrust. The new definition being floated for gender isn't about distrust. The issues are about hate not distrust. People simple do not like transgender individuals, immigrants, Muslims, Jewish people, uppity black athletes who do anything more than be entertainment, and uppity women who can't handle an old fashion smack on the butt. The Fourth Reich isn't stoking fear but rather it is seizing upon hatred. No one legitimately fears the the poor migrants in the caravan rather people just hate the idea of more immigrants. I think too many moderates and Democrats waste their time attempting to engaged in thoughtful debate with those who are plainly trolling them. Some relationships can't be save. Sometimes a break up is in order. The GOP has already done their part. The GOP has already walked away from centrist positions and made it clear minority and women aren't welcome. Everyone else (Democrats, independents, moderates) need to stop thinking there is something we can change about ourselves to make the GOP comeback. We can't. They left us. They are with someone else now (Putin).