Phi for All

You don't have to, but this is why you should. Banned for speaking the truth = criticized heavily by the membership for your version of it. Driving you out? At best, a short putt. Deleting your posts is out of the question. We've never done it before, and won't start with you. Best of luck elsewhere, thank you very much.

I think his tweets distract from the fact that nothing is getting done. It was bad when Congress was fighting to deny a black president his goals, and now I fear Trump's goals are all done in the dark, and his tweets and outrageousness are just a distraction. He spouts carpetbagger weasel crap about some complicated issue that gets attention, and with the other hand he removes protections for consumers. I find it odd he removed a law that requires ISPs to take reasonable measures to protect your data just months before the Equifax data breaches were announced. Trump is a horrible businessman but a master magician who has learned the art of distraction. He says outrageous shit and we stop demanding he explain his mountainous conflicts of interest. He rails against the NFL and we stop questioning his praise of the violence done by his supporters. Distract and plunder.

I don't understand why the first sentence is praiseworthy. Acknowledging when you're wrong is a sign of maturity and intellectual honesty. I don't understand the second sentence either. It's like saying the life of an oil rig worker is a lot tougher than that of a politician. Tough is relative, and in the context you use it, it's meaningless. I don't know why anyone but an extremist capitalist would think a businessman would make a good politician.

Unusual enough that it's obviously caused the OP's confusion. It seems to me that medicine delivered in this way doesn't fit the definition of "food" required by the best definition of "digestion".

If you want to think scientifically, time is almost always linked to space. All the math for moving about in space requires time. You can't understand what's going on with a black hole without thinking in terms of space-time. I don't think it will help you here to separate the two.

I don't think so, and let me tell you why.

The admins are working on this, and I reported the thread again to make sure it gets radar priority. I'm so sorry we're having this consistency problem.

If you think he's speaking honestly, then how can you honestly think he's fit to be in his position? I also think you're making a mistake with your line of thinking. You're lending him a LOT of power when you give him credit for "calling a spade a spade" (or whatever phrase one might use to try to excuse crude behavior and appalling prejudice), like it somehow magically makes it both relevant and appropriate.

I conflate "speak" with inform, and when my president speaks, I raise the bar quite a bit. He represents the most accurate information about my country I'm supposed to have, compiled from the heads of the executive departments. I stopped counting the number of times his tweets failed fact-checking, which means it was willful misinformation, considering he must have folks who can look this stuff up like I did. I think this is a horrible way to be spoken to by the POTUS. But he reaches for the lie first when he speaks directly, so I'm not sure the medium makes much difference.

I know we're short on staff that post in Politics, and I've said my piece, so if you don't mind, I'll bow out to moderate and give you a chance to post, swansont.

! Moderator Note Don't make me take weekend time to split your off-topic, unsupported, raggedy-ass pet theory off into the trash. Mainstream science only in mainstream science sections, please!

! Moderator Note Enough! Butch, you aren't listening to criticism, and that makes this more of a blog for you than a meaningful discussion for the membership. We gave you SO MUCH SPACE to convey and support your ideas, and it's obviously not enough to convince your peers here that you're on to something. Closing this, please don't bring this subject up again, because you can't adequately support it.

I know you didn't like her much because she rubbed you the wrong way (can't be because of any crimes she's been found guilty of all these years of trying). I'm not a fan of any politician that helps the wealthy lean further on the pool tables they already own, but this statement of yours is just plain horseshit, and you know exactly why. And she would have made a much better POTUS than the current blot, but I'm actually glad she isn't. It gives us time to reflect on what's really wrong, if we'd stop listening only to how bad the other guys are. The Democrats and Republicans both are showing how badly they screw up the system when they dance to the partisan beat and forget they're supposed to work together to represent the People, not the Party. Maybe we should get Brazile and McCain together to start calling for a new constitutional convention.

You brought up Trump like he'd simply arranged to leave Fort West Point unlocked for the British instead of encouraging Russia to disrupt our electoral process, and possibly being elected POTUS because of it. If Donna Brazile is pointing out hypocrisy, I think it's on topic to point out yours.

If Benedict Arnold had been voted POTUS with the help of British propaganda, this might be true. As it stands, he's the worst thing EVER, in politics at least, Democrat or Republican. There's never been a president where so few people agree with him so narrowly. The vast majority of his supporters only really agree with about 20% of what he stands for on any given day. They forgive his reflexive lying on virtually EVERYTHING because they share feelings about a fraction of his concerns. Perhaps Brazile is helping pave the way for a badly needed third party. I think a reasonable attempt at actually governing ALL of this country would be a refreshing change of pace, and a party that was interested in really helping the overall well-being of the citizenry might gather enough reasonable people from the two major parties to not only send a message, but make a serious go of it. Getting the People not to be distracted by the money is the hard part.

For example?

! Moderator Note conway, you place far too much importance on people being agreeable with you, and not enough on explaining your ideas to a group of peers. This thread has been reported for your insistence in the face of multiple attempts to help. Hand-waving and foot-stomping aren't part of the peer review process. You need to support your ideas in the face of criticism, or show where that criticism fails. Next time. This subject stays closed until you have more to discuss.

I disagree. I'm not sure any modern society can exist without a bit of each in its makeup, including socialism. Any society that tries to use one economic tool to the exclusion of the other two is destined to fail, imo (and history seems to back me up). There are very good reasons why ownership should be private, or held by the citizenry, or held by the state. Personally, I think it's important for a society to choose areas where profit shouldn't be the priority. It's equally important to make sure that private ownership and the markets that drive it are fair. And yes, there are even areas where state ownership is the best solution. Natural monopolies are often best controlled by a communist, state-owned approach. I like to use the example of the penal system. Imo, this is something that should NOT be profit-focused, individually owned, capitalist oriented. In the US, this has led to a quota system that is good at growing the business of crime, which is the opposite of fighting crime. The penal system should be maintained and run by the People or the State.

! Moderator Note Your idea has received constructive criticism that YOU are NOT taking on board. When an idea has flawed parts, it's time to fix those parts (which you aren't doing by insisting you're right) and see if that helps, or scrap the idea entirely. It's very poor science to build on a bad foundation, the same as it would be to build a house. If you can defend your idea (after you've corrected the mistakes that have been pointed out) with supportive evidence, you can open another thread in Speculations (since your claims are non-mainstream), but this one isn't good enough. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note QFT. Closed.

! Moderator Note Question answered, thread closed.

These words have some strength, finally. No maybe, no soon, no try. Just a firm resolution, no more, not ever, that is all. This is the attitude you'll be successful with. This is different, and I think you can feel it too. All strength to you, my friend.

If the indictments show Trump collusion with the Russians, why would we accept the administration's #2? If T is impeached, then P should be too. Ryan is next, and not part of a fake election.

If they go after Trump right away, it plays into his "witch hunt" sob. By tying up his underlings before showing the connections, nobody can say they didn't follow the evidence.

It might if we don't accept anyone from an administration that's been found guilty of colluding with foreign powers to manipulate the election that put them in office.