Phi for All

I read somewhere (before I chose my username) that Phi was pronounced "fee" in modern Greek, as opposed to the more sciencey "fye". Is this true? Less than two years till Phi Day! Pee Day is every day. No need to celebrate THAT (until I'm much older, hopefully). Celebrating Pi Day every day would just make me really fat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-2-billion-free-media_us_56e83410e4b065e2e3d75935?w2tn8kt9 I think Trump's rhetoric is purposely so vague as to be effective as a troll for votes. I think lots of his supporters probably don't agree with everything he says, but they've agreed enough in a strictly emotional, reason-free, yelling-at-the-TV way that they believe he represents them better than the hated Hillary or the commie Jew Sanders. And forget about the candidates with foreign-sounding names. The original definition of trolling, putting a whole bunch of hooks in the water and driving your boat around A LOT, not hoping to entice with bait, but to snag and drag all the fish you can get. And Trump not only gets so much more airtime to troll, he actually has bait for on the lines for some of his supporters, who happen to be the most vicious and rabid of the lot. He's giving them an outlet for hatred that is getting more and more physically violent.

Why? History does NOT repeat exactly, and your example of scale only emphasizes the eventual outcome. And that's why rhyme, though whimsically Twainish, is a more apt description. But I'll report your post and let mods not involved decide about a split.

If Sanders could drop a bombshell based on his own stances, put together something that would capture the attention of the average Trump voter, it could force the media to cover him more effectively. The media will always go after a story that keeps viewers viewing. Oh man, don't even think it. Our system of dealing with major national political disasters is not as robust as it was in 1968. Our Congress isn't well-respected enough to give believable solace if someone involved in politics or associated with it were to be assassinated today. The only reasonable voice might come from the White House, where it will only be 51% effective, based on his current approval rating.

The article suggests it might be attributable to Mark Twain. He stated history does NOT repeat itself, but often rhymes. The sentiment relies on the definition of "repeat" being an identical iteration every time, which makes sense in our modern world. "Rhyming" is more like, "The 2016 election is not exactly like the 1968 election, but damn, it sure sounds a lot like it!"

I read an interesting article yesterday. Forget about Godwining your discussions by equating Trump with Hitler. The better analogy is George Wallace. Which suddenly spotlights how history is rhyming, not repeating itself, and the 2016 election is rhyming with the 1968 election. Trump is George Wallace, with all his hateful racist rhetoric, and ability to grab free press coverage based solely on sensationalism rather than merit. Clinton is Hubert Humphrey, burdened with the Johnson/Vietnam legacy and party lines he wanted to deviate from, but didn't want to enough to fight the party. Bernie Sanders (white-haired liberal anti-war candidate beloved by college students) is Eugene McCarthy (ditto on the description). Now we just need a deceitful, subtly caustic, dirty-tricks lawyer, not well liked by many in his party, who claims to be trying to unify that party, to be Nixon's counterpart. Oh, look right there! It's Ted Cruz! Nixon focused on the votes going to Wallace. He stole enough of them with his strategy, and Wallace then left the Dems to run an independent effort. I can totally see Trump doing that if Cruz manages to be the "binding voice" of "the silent majority", a term Nixon successfully co-opted from the Wallace campaign. With the Dem vote split, many of the Wallace fanatics realized Nixon sounded more reasonable, and had experience as Eisenhower's VP. They jumped ship and Nixon won not only the nomination, he won the election. And six years later he left the White House in disgrace, and is one of the most reviled US presidents in history. History is rhyming, with horrible timing. Don't buy the ruse, never vote for Cruz.

That's exactly why I couched my question as a form of a wary probe, with all those "perhaps" and "I wonder" phrases that one puts in to let folks know it isn't really a stance so much as an observation that one wants to discuss. Try to look at the gray more often, not everything is black and white. I'm reminded of the discussions we had when the Republican Congress didn't get everything they wanted in legal, procedural ways, so they chose to blackmail the White House by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, lying that all they want to do is discuss some problems and the White House won't even talk to them (which they shouldn't; at that point, the talking had already been done), and using obfuscation to make their base believe they were doing it to keep from spending more, which was complete BS since it's only approving what we've already voted to spend. The media chooses to give both sides of this matter equal time every time it happens. This is the type of situation I'm talking about, where procedures are misused that cause all kinds of problems, don't fix what the Republicans say it will fix, and in general mess with the overall effectiveness of our government. I know it's a slippery slope to want more control over the things our representatives spend their time on, but in instances like these, so much harm comes when we give equal weight to marginal objections. Maybe this is just a media matter. Frankly, some of the more liberal news sites, like Huffington Post, are making no bones about calling Trump a pathological liar and rampant racist. They have it as an editor's note at the bottom of most Trump stories. The first time I saw this, I didn't think it was their place to allow such judgement into an article that's meant to inform, not persuade. Now I'm starting to wonder if they aren't trying to avoid giving so much power to Trump by the seeming necessity to give all candidates equal time. Trump, like serial killers, rapists, and terrorists, makes money for the media, so they probably feel like they can't avoid him as much as morality and integrity demand. I don't know if this is a good answer, to somehow place a judgement on how representative some of these political stances really are. Do we need to make sure when informing the People that the media let us know where these stances actually stack up to reality or not, and how marginal or mainstream, effective or obfuscating, and whether or not the stance is taking more backward than forward steps?

No. It's a catchall term that's too vague to arm a politician with. It's exactly what they want, terms with enough wiggle and shimmy room to do their song and dance. And it gives them too big a blanket to cover things up with, in addition to allowing them to target the wrong things for austerity. That's exactly how so many delightful babies DIE when you throw them out with the bathwater.

! Moderator Note And for your edification, you should search our Speculations forum for all the other people who mistakenly think either GR or SR is wrong while the other is right. Historically, you're misapplying one or the other. Reading the discussions we have here might help you find your mistake.

I just got a message from a Sanders delegate who is also a good friend. Here's the real delegate count as of March 2: Clinton - 595 Sanders - 405 The media is falling for Hillary's historic trick of counting super-delegate "promises" in her total. We know for a fact that when she did this in 2008, these "promised" votes mostly went to Obama as the front-runner in the end. Sanders is still a heavy contender.

And I don't think the dialogues should ever be closed. But in the end, so much good is diminished because someone won't make as much money (or insert your favorite greedy agenda that overrides the good of the People) if they do what's best for all. And for some reason, we let this happen.

My reply was in direct response to a specific comment I quoted from waitforufo. He asked why none of us liberals every complain about President Obama's deficit spending. I cited evidence saying he spent less than any president since Eisenhower. The article I quoted may have gone on to imply the rest of what you say I implied. I read back and couldn't find where I did. As for your question, I don't believe I've ever claimed what you say. Please remember, I'm a Sanders voter. He's the ONLY candidate with a tax plan that makes money rather than burden us with more debt. And I don't see anything in Sanders plans that would hurt the economy, and especially not employment. For goodness sake, the man wants everyone to get the best education they can so they can compete at higher levels in the job markets. Trump will keep us dumb and gambling on how little money we'll accept for an American to produce full-time for his employer. I guess you forgot that making the corporations and the uber-wealthy ACTUALLY contribute to necessary government revenue has the benefit of paying for the brilliance we have in reality AND in potential, as well as having some leftover to pay down our debts.

I've often wondered if our biggest problem isn't that we feel everyone has an equal right to weigh in on every issue. While I appreciate perspective when it's rational and reasonable, we often come up with fantastic ways to deal with problems in real, sustainable, truly long-term, wisdom-based ways, only to have them diminished and made less usable because we had to compromise with those who can't see that far into our future. Perhaps there are ways to preserve accountability that let the best ideas flourish without fetters. There are times to step on the gas and get things done, but if someone keeps jabbing the brakes at the wrong time, you don't go very far.

! Moderator Note This is completely unacceptable. You were shown where your calculations may be wrong, and have done nothing about them, yet you insist you're right and no one has offered a solution to your problem. We can't help fight ignorance when you purposely ignore learning anything. Thread closed due to insufficient rigor.

I should never post as I'm running out the door.

OK, I'm glad you think that. Could you answer my question, though? The one I really asked in that post, about the general prosperity we enjoyed in the 50s and 60s, and how that type of tax structure helped the whole country achieve a better level of economy, social structure, and infrastructure? Because when you dodge questions like that, it makes it seem like you won't answer because it would be a point in my favor, and it seems like that might make you puke.

It's chronologically correct to order by day/month/year (3/14/16). But in reality, it's most often spoken as March 14, 2016, so you other side of the pond-ers are just writing it the way you speak it. You're consistent, but not accurate. We're accurate, but not consistent.

Probably because Obama spent less than any president since Eisenhower. I was quoting Trump's own figures, not guessing. I was going by a report I can't find now. Here's one by a very conservative source that says Trump's tax plan will add $24.5 trillion: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000560-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan.pdf Unless you think Trump is lying about his plan, I don't see how you can say we have no idea what he's going to do. We're already low on revenue because of you tax protesters. We don't have enough to fund what should be funded. How on Earth is Trump's plan going to work? The only goal I see for such a stupid plan is that he wants to impoverish us so eventually Americans will be the work force willing to work for the least amount of money.

You'll never understand (for some weird reason) that if you don't think these social programs work, it's because people like you choose to elect those who make them weak. Like W Bush coming up with No Child blah blah, and then severely under-funding it. Step on the poor people's necks, then loudly berate them for not getting up. This image doesn't penetrate your mindset. I've worked for some really dumb people. I've seen a lot of startups make mistakes the way you're making them. The stupidest was a high-tech startup with a hot product, so hot they didn't think their salespeople needed training in the technical aspects of it. After the first week, I begged them to bring in some experts (I found them for free from the local utility) to train us for better product knowledge. They said they wanted us out selling, not in a conference room "learning". You remind me of those guys. They could have had something really great, but they cheaped out and shot themselves in the foot. I don't suppose the argument about how great the 50s and 60s were, with the super-tax on the super-rich helping to round out prosperity for so many more, made a dent in your biases? Civil rights, women's rights, everything progressed then. We didn't have the stupidity gridlock we have now. Trump's tax plan is going to add another 35 trillion dollars to our debt over 10 years, more than 3X what W Bush did. He is going to inflame the Middle East with his style of war, with all that religious hatred mixed in. He's going to continue to grow the War on Terror brand, the way he's grown the Trump brand. Terrorism will reach it's height under someone like Trump.

Part of the problem is this attitude. You never invested yourself as a citizen of the USA, never adopted the stance that you're one of the People the Constitution talks about representing. To you, and many with this attitude, the "revenuers" can't do anything right, the government only takes and never gives (or never gives to those who deserve it most), and anything they do is with your personal ruination in mind. You see the gov as a merciless king, or a brutal dictator. And all the time, you ignore the fact that it's People with your attitude that have reduced the effectiveness of government. You're like the driver who complains about traffic, when all can see that it's you that's causing it.

How is it we're the only ones smart enough to want to know the day before the month? Happy Birthday, Uncle Albert.

We have a fantastic example of how high tax rates on the super rich (90% top bracket) did NOT hurt the economy, and it did NOT make people lazy because of all the help the government was able to give. In fact, super high rates on the top bracket also seem to smooth out the boom/bust cycles we've seen so much of when taxes are low. We call it the 50s and 60s, that era that conservatives love for all the wrong reasons. Business boomed, the market boomed, the middle class took off like a rocket. BECAUSE we super-taxed the super-rich, it flooded the economy with jobs, and smart people to work those jobs, and prosperity was more well-rounded, not something reserved for the silver spoons. I wouldn't approach it as an offset to automation taking jobs. It should me a minimum amount of resources so anyone can subsist on it while looking for work. Low-cost housing, healthy food, I guess some sort of basic clothing. If we had universal healthcare, and free access to education up to the college level, those bases are already covered. Nobody homeless, ignorant, sick, or hungry. A level below which a citizen of the USA doesn't have to go. We could have this for basically nothing. Just use the money we spend incarcerating drug-only offenders. Since the way we've "waged" the War on Terror has only caused terrorism to grow, if we could show that diplomatic efforts, like sanctions on countries that allow terrorists to operate within their borders, might work just as well to reduce the risks of attacks on our own soil, I think many might see the wisdom in not giving terrorists such an international stage (which is EXACTLY what they want, right?). Trade sanctions over carpet bombing. Could work, let's try. The whole conservative anti-intellectual movement has left our schools in a shambles. Again, since they want to privatize education with vouchers, profit rather than knowledge becomes the focus. With all the modern technology we have at our disposal, and modern examples from around the world of more effective teaching systems, I think we can make education something to be proud of. The teachers I know are like your wife, Ed, they want to educate in a meaningful way.

Perhaps we need a minimum subsistence standard below which they can't make any more cuts. Then we might be able to weather their insanity until they have no more power.

What are we abandoning? We have a social democracy now. We can choose to enhance the social programs we have now, or let the conservatives continue to destroy them. We have history, and lots of reality-based evidence that shows the conservative way is more costly over time, and doesn't really achieve what they think it does. In the US, we pay more for just about everything, and for some reason this seems to be a point of pride for Trumpets and their ilk. It's unbelievable to me, who grew up with lots of conservative folks, that any American would allow the overcharging that goes on with contractors to our federal government. The corruption there is treasonous, imo. http://theweek.com/articles/449215/does-welfare-make-people-lazy This is a fact about welfare I wish every conservative could know. They fear the safety nets will turn into hammocks, and that's such an easy visual for them to get behind, since this is what they fear is happening. But it's not. Even when welfare benefits have been more generous, they still don't drastically affect the number of job seekers. This is probably one of those confirmation bias points where more evidence to the contrary entrenches the belief that this is happening, but I don't think you'll ever hear this kind of evidence on conservative news sources. Those guys are all about how we shouldn't help anyone unless they can help themselves, or unless they're different, or lazy, or colored.

Oh, that's not Taxachusetts. That's Texasphyxia.