Phi for All

Smart business people would understand the reasoning behind "My pool cost me $50,000, but we can build one for the rest of the whole community for about 10 times that with tax dollars". The fact that many of the wealthy want to cut those types of programs leads one to believe it's instead done out of spite, or even jealousy. The community pool is bigger than their private pool! Why should the non-job-creators get to frolic in a swimming pool like they were rich or something? Trump says he pays as little tax as he can because he doesn't like what's done with the money. I think he sees this as his chance to throw away what the People need, in favor of spending the money on things that will benefit him and his. Maybe then he'll feel better about paying his taxes.

Similar to my Republican litmus test, where if the lips are un-stiff enough to be moving, they're lying.

Dimensions aren't places you can "pass through". They're part of a coordinate system we use to specify a point in spacetime. M Theory isn't exactly at the top of the charts right now either, as far as any string theory goes. Most patterns of the type you mention, seemingly blending science and religion, are just coincidence. Tree of Life = Witten's String Theory is a real stretch, too far for this analogy to hold much. The mind/universe/computer coding/computing/rendering stuff is just wishful thinking. The mind doesn't work like a computer, the universe isn't a printer. I find the idea of "balance" to be overemphasized when people try to reconcile science and religion. If the universe were truly balanced, there would be no matter. Balanced matter and antimatter would annihilate each other totally. Instead, an unbalanced, extra particle of matter makes us possible. I have big problems with your (or anyone's) concept to omnipotence, but that's not really relevant. Most of the rest seems like opinion, and I have no comments on that.

! Moderator Note Title changed from "Physiological" to "Psychological" Test on Politicians.

I don't get this at all, MigL. Are you saying that overtone claimed it was easy to maintain these movements? I know he didn't, so it seems like you're claiming we shouldn't have tried because there were obstacles. Are you claiming that? This seems like a bizarre tack to take. "Things weren't perfect under those presidents, so that 'movement' stuff they did doesn't count". That's the way this comes off.

And there's a big difference between conservatives in these elections, and the liberals. The conservatives think helping young people who've had little experience is "enabling". Liberals call it an investment in People. Trump's investments aren't in People.

Don't focus on the circus. That's what money does to elections. It's a magician's distraction technique. Focus on the issues. How do you feel about your fellow Americans? Do you think they have rights that have eroded over the last 60 years or so, or do we have too many rights? Is there a candidate who represents the way you feel about the issues? It's less about how that candidate looks (or should be) and more about whether you can trust them to do the things they promise they'll do. Politics is important because it's the best way for you to stand up and be counted for something important to you on many levels, local, regional, national. Whether you think handguns shouldn't be allowed in your local museums, or you think it's wrong for corporations to gain the benefits of both a legal corporate charter AND protection as citizens of the US (which conflict heavily, btw, and is one reason why you hear that Citizens United MUST be overturned), politics is the way to make it happen. It's the process by which you will invest yourself in your country, and hopefully nudge it closer towards being the country you're proud of.

fd

I sometimes feel like you're humor impervious. Your tendency to overanalyze costs you a lot here.

! Moderator Note Please calm down. Calls for clarity on a science site are NOT "issues", nor are they shit-stirring. Accuracy in discussion is required in science. This thread has been successful so far. Let's keep it up, and keep it accurate. No need to respond unless you want to Report this modnote.

Great point. I'm disappointed in the media outlet's manipulation, based on what businesses they also own, for political gains that have little to do with the will of the People. Between ignoring their job to inform in favor of profits, and the conflict of interest in owning media that can bury your other companies indiscretions, AND the fact that it was Bill Clinton who made it possible in 1996 with the Telecommunications Act (so Hillary is unlikely to change anything there), they are definitely as much a part of the problem as banking and our foreign policy.

Whoa, tl;dr

Right, I've said this. I want opinions on how this might be accomplished. How can the Sanders Movement best approach the folks who might jump from Trump when the ballots are actually marked? I've shown a bit of evidence that shows many of his supporters are aligned with Sanders message, only they're dazzled by the Donald's overarching press coverage. If you think he has no chance at all, I'd rather hear from those who have some suggestions that might give him a chance. Seats are available in Congress that could give him a clearer path. If the Movement can assure that Sanders can get nominated, win, AND help enough Dems overturn those seats, I think Sanders can look like the most reasonable choice to many Trumpets and lots of Hillarites. But how can he reach emotionally based voters with sober, reasonable, evidence-based arguments when all they want to do is scream?

The Sanders Movement would need five seats in the Senate to gain control there. The Dems have 10 seats to defend, while the Republicans have 24 seats, and many of those are freshman senators, and some are in states Obama won in 2012. The Senate is winnable realistically. The House is different, but this also isn't 2014. A presidential election, accompanied by a strong Sanders movement, could potentially unseat enough of the constipation masquerading as Constitution. But this is where the Republicans are strong, via redistricting and other maneuvers designed to thwart fair representation. An overwhelming response by Democratic voters is needed, imo, to overcome the shady tactics. I'm becoming more hopeful The Movement might just fix most of our problems. They say that the one characteristics Trump supporters have in common is a lack of a college degree that has left them farther down the ladder than they may deserve, and here's Bernie offering to fix that at no cost to the average Trump supporter. If they ever realize this, do you think they would help fix Congress too?

So true. But 30 years before Marilyn, it was all about the skinny, flat flapper girls. It certainly could. And there's no weirdness in that. By the time a woman is showing her pregnancy, she's usually gone through all the trauma of learning she's pregnant, the morning sickness, the fatigue, and all the things that reduce sexual drive. When she's far enough along to show appreciably (and I do appreciate it), she's probably also more ready to have more sex. And some doctors think sex can be used to help contractions in a woman who is overdue. A hormone present in the cervix during the final stages of birth is also present in semen. The mechanism is still uncertain though.

This isn't a would-you-vote-for-him thread. Or a Hillary vs Bernie thread. I'd like to discuss what The Sanders Movement would need to do to achieve the real change Sen. Sanders wants. Because it seems obvious that just being nominated, or even elected, just won't be enough. Some experts and polls think Bernie Sanders has a chance to beat any of the Republicans should he get the nomination. If he does, he admits himself he wants a movement on ideas, rather than a personality contest for candidates. So what do you think his movement needs, not only to get him the nomination, but to help him also gain the Presidency, and reduce the amount of obstructionists in Congress?

I think it was your early exposure to Renaissance paintings. When a bit of shapeliness wasn't considered shameful.

Eldad, I have to say, many of your topics are valid, but the way you argue for them, with only emotional justifications instead of reasoned, well-thought-out, supported arguments with a perspective rooted in reality, makes it seem like you're saying, "Oh, I didn't bother to get good grades in school, so let's change the way the system judges me". Thus you get all kinds of pushback and drama about your opinions. Is that what you're really after, even when it's so negative? Your phrases: "very stressful", "heavy competition", "more progressed age", very hard". Where is the clarity here? Where is the detail? These are hand-waving words, with no support and no way to judge your arguments with any accuracy or meaning. You're being really vague with all the compassion and understanding emoteology (a word I made up just for you, to describe your emotions-only based ideology). Has anyone mentioned before that this is a science site, and we all prefer more reasoning and critical thinking in our discussions? It really doesn't take that much longer to research a bit of reality to support yourself, and turn a mere opinion into an argument we can respect because it has some support. Sorry, but I want to help you if you want to do more than garner bad rep and shaking heads here. If that's what you want, you won't last. I think you can learn a great deal here, but something keeps you from taking anything on board that disagrees with your ideology, and I think it's because you think too emotionally and don't give reason much of a chance.

Great points, iNow. I think if Sanders gets the nomination, he'd need the movement to somehow bring him enough congressional seats to push some of his best ideas. And I truly think it might be doable, if his concept of Socialism can be explained to Trump supporters to point out how it really aligns with many of the things they're mistakenly hoping the Donald isn't lying about. Many Trump supporters just think he's going to destroy the establishment and they want to watch the world burn with him in charge. If they could think more on the positive side, they might realize Sanders offers a more controlled version of the same things, without any invective, racial hate, or special business interests. Many think Trump is a low risk, high reward candidate, but they think the same thing of Sanders. Many might realize Sanders proposals come with the added guarantees of 40 years of consistent policies and voting records. Many Trump supporters consider him a liberal who wants the US to be on top again. I think those folks could also be persuaded by a movement, rather than Sanders as an even more liberal candidate, that would include getting rid of the worst of the obfuscaters and log-jammers in Congress. Hillary is going to continue the Middle East strategies that seem to grow the business of terrorism for both sides. That and the fact that she won't touch banking and telecom regs in her term(s) is also off-putting to me, and I hope to many. I should probably start a Sanders Movement thread, and see if anyone thinks such a drive might be able to put him in office AND help give him a Congress that won't just say no to everything he wants to change.

I forgot to mention that the adrenaline overriding the sleep paralysis chemicals may be a way of recognizing a perceived danger that might require fight or flight immediately on waking.

You may be using a definition of "[going] into shock" that has been diluted by pop science articles. Truly going into shock involves a life-threatening restriction of blood flow that requires immediate treatment. I'm not sure that every time we have a death dream that we wake up, but if so, I think your adrenaline concept is closer to the mark. There are chemicals that are introduced while sleeping that paralyze the body, and it seems reasonable that adrenaline might stimulate (not shock) and override the GABA and glycine that keep you from really grabbing at all those branches on your somnolent plummet down the cliff. Are these just personal ideas you'd like discussed, or do you have any questions?

Just a guess, but... Maybe you're over-analyzing analogies. Maybe you're responding seriously to humorous posts that were NEVER INTENDED TO BE THE SOURCE OF A TOPIC HIJACK? You seem to be posting just to post something lately. Maybe I'm wrong. Or not.

Awesome caucus last night. Probably overflowed the high school's capacity for the classroom where 68 Dems showed up for my precinct (the 2012 caucus had 8 of us in that room). The room was almost completely divided, 34 for Clinton, 32 for Sanders, 2 Undecided. And no yelling, no divisiveness, no ill-feelings, just some VERY intelligent and broadly experienced people deciding complex issues using reason, historical precedence, and reality-based information. The decisions made seemed to avoid as much emotional argument as possible, so we had no "heated" debate so prevalent in what I've seen from the Republican side. The debate points made were all valid, and were deemed so by everyone, even when they were often at odds with each other. We had one Sanders advocate that eloquently pointed out that among all the candidates, Sanders is the only one who has stuck by his political stances for 40 years, and remained the most consistent in NOT being prey to special interests. Clinton supported TPP, now she's against it, and some think she's going to flip back once in office, due to "changes" in the partnership that are now favorable. Bernie totally opposes it, based on the historical erosion of worker's unions, and the chaos that's bred when we expose unsophisticated countries to American military/industrial/business model exploitation for profit masked as fair trade. That part had just about everyone in the room, Hillarites and Berners, nodding in agreement. I think the consensus from the room (just my opinion, mind you), was that Sanders represents a lot of good change, but it may be too much for some to think he has a chance of working with a conservative Congress. I'm not sure why they think Clinton has a better chance (since the Republicans hate her on multiple levels, whereas Bernie is simply dismissed as a Pinkocommusocialist). I got to vote on a proposition that's very dear to me. My favorite science & nature museum is partially funded by federal dollars, so it's required to allow conceal & carry firearm permit holders (who aren't really required to know very much about handguns) to bring a handgun into a museum, something our state and city funded cultural buildings don't have to tolerate. We had one dissenter, and even she was not shouted down emotionally (I simply wanted to know which days she visited the museum, and I said it with a smile).

It's not about stubborn. You were given multiple ways to address this problem short of prohibition, you've been shown how historically prohibition doesn't work, you even seemed to agree that a more measured response by the global community consisting of steps to improve the situation was called for. But now you're throwing that all out in favor of prohibition. You're taking all these steps backward as if nobody said anything relevant. I'm not going to bother anymore.

Wow, it's like you didn't read anything anyone wrote, and now you're back to square one. I really dislike discussing anything with you, Eldad. You waste everyone's time with your thoughtless posts. This is just unacceptable.