GeorgiaDon

So is it your argument that "Honest Donald" is campaigning on policies he does not believe he can get passed? If presidents have no influence on policy, why has every candidate who has ever run for the office had a "platform" (sketchy as it is in DTs case)? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

DT promises to spend trillions more to build up the military, and then use that military to "project American strength" around the world. Pense talked about shooting down Russian planes in Syria, which would likely lead to a shooting war with Russia. No plan is offered to explain how all this military buildup will be paid for. Certainly it will be bought on credit, i.e. adding to the deficit. DT promises to tear up every trade agreement the US has signed. Trade agreements are our only protection against massive trade barriers. Trade with other countries pays for millions of jobs in the US, many of which will certainly be lost if DT's proposals are followed. DT promises massive tax cuts to the wealthiest (himself included), and more modest cuts to middle class taxpayers to make it more palatable, with no plan on how those cuts will be paid for. Many reputable economists have concluded that DTs economic plan would cost millions of jobs and balloon the national debt by trillions. There's lots more of course, but that will do for a start. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Agreed. I don't know what the moderator is supposed to do when neither debater will shut up and let the other speak. She was certainly trying and they just talked over her. It might be helpful if the moderator could control which microphone is "on" or at least shut off the "interrupter" so only one can be heard at a time. Kaine was worse for interrupting, at least at first. I heard his performance described as "too caffeinated" which seems about right. On the other hand, it must have been really infuriating to try to debate with someone who just denies, over and over, statements that are public record. "If Donald Trump had said those things...(about Mexicans, women, the military, etc)" WTF? There's no "if"! Racking up a billion dollar loss is "brilliant"??? How do you debate someone who lives in such an alternate reality land that they take every stupid thing Trump has said and either deny it or imply it was actually Clinton that said it? Who denies that he and Trump have repeatedly spoken in admiring tones about Putin's leadership qualities? Who denies that Trump has said he would create a deportation force to round up every undocumented immigrant, starting on "day one"? Listening past all the noise and fury, here's what I got from the Pence side re policy: 1. They will vastly increase the size of the military. 2. They will use the military to "project American force" around the world. 3. They will start a hot war with Russia over Syria. 4. They will use the office of the presidency to compel everyone to live by conservative Christian values. 5. They will prevent people from questioning the behavior of the police. There is more, but that's enough for me. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't see any problem. Everybody knows when the R's do it they are just demonstrating their business acumen. It's only bad when democrats do it. Just like cheating on your spouse, if you are the Republican candidate (or any of his advisers), "cheating" just proves you're "manly" and "successful". Of course it's despicable if a Democrat does it, and (as a Democrat) you're just as despicable/guilty if you let your spouse cheat on you. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

They still had that bag of dicks, though. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Maybe he'll make the best of it at the next debate, and show up in a gorilla suit and take a baseball bat to Hillary, the moderator, smash up the podium, declare "I win", and storm off and hold a rally somewhere. His supporters would love it, plenty of spectacle and raw anger, and none of that liberal ivory tower "policy" or "ideas" or "thinking" or "explaining". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

America's best days will come when all people are allowed to work to achieve their potential, regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. It will come when Americans are more concerned with the values that unite them than they are with petty differences that divide. It will come when Americans realize they are stronger when they are willing to lend each other a helping hand up, not a fist to keep "those scary people*" down. (*scary being anyone who does not look or think like me, or go to the same church, or come from the same part of the country or socioeconomic class) America was not at its best when any group of people were entitled to success they had not earned, simply by virtue of birthright. Some people may lament that lost advantage, and feel angry that they may have to earn privileges they once took for granted, or have to share them with others who have a different pigmentation, religion, or preference in love. Too bad. When America was founded it fell far short in practice from the ideals it espoused in principle. Reluctantly, step by step, often with literal or figurative conflict, Americans are being dragged (more or less) towards the practice of those ideals, and they are better for it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just remembering that quintessentially Alaskan Sarah Palin interview. But seriously, Promise's photos are beautiful, and I'm sure we all wish her the very best. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's even more ugly than that. One of the cops who has been charged had been hitting on Few's fiance (Few is the guy who was being chased, the father of the kid who was killed). Few had told the cop to screw off and leave his fiance alone. Link here. This really looks like an attempted execution, with the kid as collateral damage. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Congrats! Hopefully your awesome day will be the start of an awesome life together. Nice photos too. You obviously hired the good photographer, not the one who overlooks the guy using a wood chipper to behead turkeys in the background. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There are several major flaws in the "thinking" in that article. For example: 1. It is true that pH does fluctuate some naturally, even on a daily basis as phytoplankton are photosynthetically active during the day and not at night. Aquatic organisms can obviously live within this natural range of variation. As the average pH falls, though, with acidification, the fluctuation range falls too. The historical mean pH of the ocean surface is 8.2, and this will fluctuate up and down by about 0.02 pH units. It is disingenuous to say that if an organism can survive withing a range of pH values (say for example between 8.22 and 8.18. mean of 8.2) it will be perfectly happy if the mean pH goes to 8.18, because now normal fluctuations will mean some of the time those organisms will be exposed to pH 8.16, more acid than what they have experienced to this point. Here's another way to think about it. Temperature fluctuates daily and seasonally. Suppose the normal mean is 75 degrees, and it ranges from 45 to 95. Obviously any organism that lives under those conditions can survive that range, although they may be physiologically stressed at the extremes. Occasionally the temperature may go a bit above or below that range, which will be quite stressful but probably survivable for brief periods. Now imagine that temperature shifts to a mean of 85 degrees, with a daily/seasonal range between 55 and 105. The average is still within the range of what used to be normal, but now that organism is frequently exposed to temperatures significantly higher than what it is physiologically adapted for. Will it still be able to live under those conditions? If the trend continues and now it is exposed to 115 degrees for half the year will it survive? The point is, it's not the average that will kill you, it's the high or the low of the range of fluctuation. 2. Just because some animals are continuously secreting a carbonate shell does not mean pH will not affect them. If the water is dissolving the shell at a rate that is slower than the shell is secreted, the animal will still have an abnormally thin shell. The shell thickness is a response to environmental pressures, such as predators or being pounded by waves. A thin shell is a weak shell, and may not be good enough to do the job. Once the water gets to be too acid, the shell will dissolve as it is being secreted and no shell at all will form, but the organism will be dead long before that pH is reached. 3. Some life stages are more sensitive to pH than others. Fish and marine invertebrates have external fertilization, and sperm and eggs tend to be more sensitive to pH than the adult animals are. So you could easily have a situation where adult animals are not dying due the pH, but they are not reproducing. Guess what happens if that goes on for a while. 4. Many species of phytoplankton and zooplankton seem to be especially sensitive to pH. These organisms are the foundation of the marine food chain. Even if fish can survive a particular degree of acidification, how well will they do without food? Current rates of ocean pH change indicate that pH will fall by as much as 0.4 pH units by the end of this century. That is a massive change (as the pH scale is logarithmic), and is likely to cause widespread devastation. pH has likely changed over geological time, but not at such a rapid rate. Evolution is a slow process, marine organisms could likely adapt to a somewhat more acid environment if the change was slow enough. Change at the current rate is only going to result in mass extinctions if it is allowed to proceed unchecked. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, you would certainly be the one to know about bobble head mode. Birds of a feather? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

If enough people like Ron and Marc Rush show up to vote, it's possible he could be elected. Stunts like this are just more evidence of the disaster Trump would be as president. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, a refutable proof sounds like the sources you prefer. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Lots of people seem to feel that way. I guess I just don't see it. I certainly do not know her personally so I don't have a bias from that perspective. People who have worked with her claim that she is very personable and considerate, as well as smart and hard-working. I think it's asking a lot for people to come across as very charismatic when speaking policy to a large crowd. Her husband had that trick down, but I don't think it's especially relevant to being able to do the job well. I want someone who pays attention to details, who gives a darn, and who realizes the world is a complex place and simplistic solutions are almost certain to blow up (sometimes literally). Whether or not they'd be interesting to have a beer with is not germane. On the other hand, I don't think I'd last 5 minutes with Trump without blowing a gasket. He knows nothing about policy and cares less about people other than himself and his family. He has no respect for actual true facts, even less than Bush Jr did. If he has even bothered to think about an issue at all, he at best has a postage stamp sized "policy" that is so obviously stupid it almost hurts. I suppose for me the "have a beer" test comes down to, could I talk to this person for an hour (beer optional but a nice touch) and come away impressed that they understand what they are talking about and have interesting ideas they can actually explain and defend. It's not necessary that I agree with them, sometimes disagreeing makes for a more informative debate. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Greed and ambition are still seen as masculine traits by most Americans, and so are unseemly in a woman, who are supposed to be warm and nurturing. Greedy aggressive women are generally described as a "bitch". They don't even have to be greedy, as long as they are overtly ambitious. Men who are too "warm and nurturing" find their sexuality questioned. Not that most people will say that to your face, but that is the "gut reaction". At least the Amish are honest enough to admit they would never vote for a woman, but that isn't very relevant to the election as 95% of Amish don't vote. Some people will disapprove of this, but I think the current election is strong evidence that this kind of "thinking" is very much at play. Aggressive Trump behaviors (name-calling, gratuitously screwing over business partners/investors/contractors/employees, lying, aggrandizing, never admitting to being wrong on anything, etc) are seen as indicating a "successful businessman" and so are dismissed or even admired, and much more minor (but socially abrasive) behaviors by Clinton are seen as disqualifying. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It is astonishing to me that someone as obviously intelligent as you cannot distinguish between someone stating a fact and someone approving of that fact. About half a million people die each year from malaria, most of them children under 5 years old. That is a fact. Does stating that fact mean I am happy that those people die, that I'm OK with it? Is there room in your world view to consider the possibility that I work long hours in part to stop people from dying of malaria? Or would you prefer that I say no-one ever dies of malaria, because that is the world I'd like to see? If I say there is racism in our society, why does that make me a racist? The attitude you have displayed in this thread makes it impossible to have any kind of a discussion. If I cannot state a simple truth without being attacked as if I wholeheartedly endorsed that truth as a good thing, then fuck it. I'm done with you. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

We are talking about current legal reality, not what you (and perhaps I) might wish. Have the courts put any particular class of data off limits to the judiciary, even if they do everything "by the book"? Is there anything they are barred from obtaining as long as they have a warrant? I'm not asking what you think should be, I'm asking what actually is the case right now. I think it is unlikely that any court would say the judiciary can get a warrant to search your paper records, but your electronic records are forever off limits. Given what the courts already permit, it seems there are no limits as long as probable cause is demonstrated. Whether or not that should be the case is a different matter. Certainly the 9th and 10th amendments have not been interpreted to say electronic records can never be searched under any circumstance, or that the police cannot enforce wiretaps on Thursdays, or whatever it is you have in mind (but have not said) regarding what should be included under "absolute privacy". Perhaps there should be some types of information the judiciary should never under any circumstances be allowed to gather, but where in the Constitution is there any guidance about where the boundary between permissible and impermissible may lie? I assume you would at least concede that the judiciary should be allowed to gather some information, otherwise they would never be able to investigate any crimes and they might as well disband. Maybe in the future if the government develops a mind reading machine, I would hope the courts would decide that is going too far. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just to refresh your memory, the quote in question was: "No such thing as absolute privacy in America–no place out of judicial reach." We are not talking about freedom of conscience, freedom or religion, or any of the other important freedoms listed in the Universal Declaration. I did not see any mention of "absolute privacy" (in those or other words) listed in the Declaration. What do you think Comey meant by the term "absolute privacy...no place out of judicial reach"? To me, "absolute" means complete, 100% pure, without any cracks or loopholes. To me, it seems obvious that the quote can only refer to a place the judiciary can never look under any circumstances, not even with a warrant, court order, or NSA security letter. A place where you can put information (or maybe go in person) where the US Constitution gives assurance the judiciary can never look for that information (or for you). Does the Constitution create such a place? It lists many things the government cannot do, such as establishing a state religion, and in other places it limits the governments power, for example by establishing due process procedures before you can be detained or have your property searched. I am not aware that it mentions privacy explicitly at all, the concept of privacy rights must be assumed for many of the described rights to exist. Is there anything in the Constitution that says or even logically implies the existence of a "safe place" the judiciary may never even try to look at? I don't see anything like that. Comey's quote (or whoever actually made it, assuming it is a paraphrase of something he actually did say) was undiplomatically blunt, but I don't think it was factually wrong. I would suggest that if people want to create spaces forever beyond the reach of the judiciary, even if the judiciary has followed all due process requirements, maybe they need to propose a constitutional amendment. That way we could at least debate the pros and cons of creating such a space. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't understand the intent or reason for the tone of your questions. I have not said anything to indicate that I agree with any such government activity. What do you think Comey meant by "a right to absolute privacy"? The relevant question is, does such a right exist, which cannot be answered unless we can define what constitutes absolute privacy. I think privacy is a different issue from self-incrimination. The police can get a warrant to search your devices, but you do not have to give them information to break the encryption. That is quite different from "absolute privacy", which to me would be a situation where the police are barred from ever getting a warrant or trying to search your devices under any circumstances. You may, of course, have a different idea of what is meant by absolute privacy. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Of course we do. Comey is not talking about our right to choose our own career, or who to marry, or to refuse medical treatment and so on. He is talking about "absolute privacy", meaning (as I take it) privacy that cannot be breached by the judiciary even with a warrant. Does the constitution define a place you can go, or put things, that the judiciary is barred from ever getting a warrant to search? It seems to me that as long as the judiciary can (with a warrant) search all of your property, all of your bank/phone/whatever records, listen in on all your conversations, and so on, it is hard to argue we have any right to "absolute privacy". Our privacy rights are conditional, and they can be set aside if the judiciary can show probable cause. Whether or not that is a good thing is a different matter. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I really hate this process, as it is perfectly set up for abuse. Politicians use it either sneak in a law they don't want people to see coming, to pass laws that are too odious to stand on their own, or to kill legislation by attaching "poison pills". I wish the practice was banned, so amendments would have to be directly related to the parent bill. Unrelated amendments would have to be openly proposed and voted on, on their own merits. If a proposed law cannot stand daylight and open discussion it should not be passed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree it could have been stated in a less provocative fashion, or perhaps it would have been better to have said nothing at all, but I don't know anything about the context. Was he responding to some statement? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Not saying that I agree with either the factualness or the sentiment of Comey's tweet, but can you point me to the part of the constitution that specifies places or activities that are "off limits" to the judicial system even with a warrant or court order? Is there such a thing as a constitutional "safe harbor" where people are beyond the law? I can't think of any circumstances where the police/FBI are barred from even investigating a potential crime, as long as they get a warrant. In that sense, might it not be true that there is no such thing as absolute privacy? Of course, they may not be able to get in to where they want to search, due to encryption for example, but that is not the same as saying they aren't even allowed to try. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do you mean this Agenda 21? "Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development." Ooo scary!! Can't have any sustainable development! Only non-sustainable development allowed. We love our environmental destruction and mass starvation. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)