Maybe it's a huge conspiracy. :joke:

Thanks for that poll tracker.

Tells actually a situation that is very surprising! Nothing portrayed in the Media would make you connect the present to such polls.

This is an existential crisis for the Conservative party, they are terrified that a truly socialist party can get into government and take to task their privelidged lifestyles, so they fear. — Punshhh

No Punshhh, it is this agitation and agravation that just makes ordinary politics to be out of the ordinary. When you look at the polls Boris Johnson has saved the Conservatives from utter ruin (if the polls are to be believed). And it's the Brexit party that is in an existential crisis. And why wouldn't they: what on Earth does a party to give other than a process that is well under way? I assume that you Punshhh aren't a conservative, so I guess you are the people helping Johnson getting the conservatives to support him with those kind of remarks... if you would be a reporter.

To put it simply, fear mongering and mud slinging works. In surprising ways.

Today the best possible thing happen to a conservative politician is that the liberal media is just going crazy in bashing him. Just like it seems to be for a leftist politician to be accused of being an unrepentant Marxist-Leninist or whatever. That's the kind of world we live in.


(Two typical British politicians)

Coming back to Hong Kong, we should remember that for the Chinese Communist Party the crackdown on Tianamen Square in 1989 was success story: it stopped political turmoil and after it China has seen economic growth on a scale that hasn't been seen historically. They can look back and say that was the correct thing to do. They will see these protests a threat that they have successfully countered once before. And they have already taken their time, so they don't seem to be desperate.

Yet there's one extremely important difference with fascism and let's say a country like the US, which you could argue to be a liberal plutocracy (with the classic definition of liberalism used here). Now it can be that in both cases the actual leaders of the country can indeed be very rich. But it's the way how the state operates that makes the difference.

In a liberal democracy, a group of extremely rich people that do have much power simply doesn't make at a unified leadership that fascism has, which typically has a leader (dictator) and/or a small cabal that share a unified political agenda and lead the country. In the US, in comparison of China, you have billionaires like Koch brothers and George Soros, Peter Thiel, Marc Zuckerberg and Elon Musk etc. which have quite different agendas and political views. This means that this group simply doesn't decide on a coherent single plan on what to do with the US. In a fascist state it's all about the great plans. Just as we see in China.

Fascist governments simply operate like this. They can be smart at what to do and where to invest, but they simply cannot imagine some new industry that nobody has seen yet. Hence it's the government centralization and the oppressive ideology of fascism that are the structural problems.

It's rather difficult to think that in a fascist state something like the PC revolution or the social media would appear. The commercial use of the internet or the technological revolutions in oil production that have made the US again a large oil producer didn't happen because of a government plan (even if especially the internet does have roots in military applications). Then when we go to what kind of effect the limitation of freedom has on the people and many problems emerge.

Not only that.

China is also a great example that a fascist system can adapt to the present and thrive economically. At least for a while, that is. On the long run I'm not so sure: Government lead capitalism can go only so far and once it has caught up and it ought to be truly innovative, then the problems start. Freedom isn't something you just can confine to the economy and technical innovation and otherwise limit.

Ok, I understand. Buzzwords and labels. — DingoJones

Basically yes. And reactions to buzzwords and labels, dog whistles and so on. It's not about trying to understand the other. How to interpret things in the worst possible way and to...win.

Here is a paper that questions the 'diagonal argument'.
https://app.box.com/s/vdop6iqhi8azgoc2upd76ifu8zacq8e4 — sandman

Cranky. — fishfry

The author giving just one reference and that being the Wikipedia page of the diagonal argument is telling by itself.

And seems like the author is simply confused about infinite sets. And one really has to understand how different the reals are.

What I mean, generally speaking, is that if someone (who we don't know) starts a conversation about some issue, we tend to notice "catchphrases" etc. and assume the person is of one or another camp.

Its been strange, watching the thread have such disagreement when as far as I can tell everyone basically agrees. — DingoJones

I think it's telling: something indeed is amiss.

As if there is this urge to compartmentalize us and just to assume that people don't think of the issues. Some stereotypical viewpoint just defines us.

Trump wants to do what the American people want? What a tyrant! — NOS4A2

No. He just doesn't care about torture... if the voters think that torture works, he goes with it. After all, in the debate the moral stand wasn't touched, just the effectiveness of the interrogation method (see the wording... by Trump himself).

I’m not saying these speculations are wrong; I’m just saying they are assumptions. — NOS4A2

And above you just made the assumption that the American people want waterboarding (and hence are OK with torture). :smirk:

To your point, this is largely semantics. “Colourblind” is being defined differently by you and I. — DingoJones

Then the next question is of course, if we take the others definition and go with it, do we then have an issue here?

Being colourblind when judging the character of a person is not the same as the way you mean it as being blind to experiences or history relating to race/racism. — DingoJones

Yes, it indeed isn't the same! That's my whole point.

The question could be put perhaps this way: if something has divided us and has caused discrimination, persecution and outright violence, what do we do with it?

Better to have a bunch of American mini-me's than one giant Russia. Better for America, better for Americans, and better for the would be comrades. — VagabondSpectre

And do not that former Warsaw pact countries wanted to join the US alliance. Of course there are exceptions.

Typically those countries that the US has bombed don't have an urge to join NATO. So even if Milosevic was ousted by US help (and the covert help has been admitted), Serbia is still close to Russia and has not intension of joining NATO.


Unlike other countries, In Serbia people love Putin.

I don’t mind the speculation, but there is a lot of mind-reading involved in your screed — NOS4A2

Really, you think so? Ok, then a reference you can find in many articles besides this one:

"General Mattis is a strong, highly dignified man. I met with him at length and I asked him that question. I said, 'What do you think of waterboarding?'" Trump told The New York Times on Tuesday. "He said -- I was surprised -- he said, 'I've never found it to be useful.' He said, 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.'"

Trump added, "I'm not saying it changed my mind. Look, we have people that are chopping off heads and drowning people in steel cages and we're not allowed to waterboard. But I'll tell you what, I was impressed by that answer."

The President-elect said he would be influenced by Americans' views of waterboarding.
"It's not going to make the kind of a difference that maybe a lot of people think. If it's so important to the American people, I would go for it. I would be guided by that," he said.

See Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments

So it really isn't speculation at all. Trump is so clear to interpret. As clean water. When you read books about Trump they paint the same picture.

I think it’s clear that you and other critics equivocate between border hopping and overstaying visas as a means to discredit the idea of a wall, as if the wall was intended to end illegal immigration in general, and not to alleviate the border crisis in particular. — NOS4A2

No. What my point is that actual effective policies are typically multifaceted and complex and cannot be put into one simple sentence.

The troops were brought to help with logistics, administration, surveillance and barrier construction. It wasn’t for drama or political reasons, but because DHS was at a breaking point under the current surge of illegals, facing a system-wide breakdown. — NOS4A2

Again really? Before the midterms? Your simply being silly now. Or an apologist.

Let's see how it was actually when Trump ordered troops to the border:

More than 5,000 U.S. active-duty forces will be used to “harden” points of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border to confront what officials said is now two caravans of more than 6,000 migrants from Central America making their way toward the border, U.S. Northern Command Commander Air Force Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy said Monday.

“We’re bringing in military police units. We’re bringing in strategic airlift,” O’Shaughnessy said. “As we sit right now, we have three C-130s and a C-17 that is ready to deploy with Customs and Border Protection personnel wherever they need to be.” The 5,200 active duty troops would join about 2,100 National Guard forces sent by Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona earlier this year to bolster the border. - Mattis' orders last week expressly prohibit the troops from engaging with any of the migrants or conducting law enforcement activities, which would run those troops afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federalized troops from conducting domestic law enforcement. Under exceptions to the law, those forces are allowed to support border patrol in administrative, surveillance or air-support roles.

However, the roles O’Shaughnessy suggested the forces would conduct, specifically in “hardening” points of entry, suggested the troops may end up in contact with migrants trying to enter the U.S. even if they had intended on remaining in a supporting role.

O’Shaughnessy said that his command has been careful to ensure that all of the roles undertaken by those forces would comply with the Posse Comitatus Act.

See President Trump orders 5,200 active duty troops to US-Mexico border

I think I'll listen to the words of the commander of NORTHCOM in this case. And then let's just look at what Operation Faithful Patriot is said to be about by US Northern Command: the operation is being conducted in order to block a potential border crossing of migrants from Central America.


It was all about the caravans back. The classic mid-term campaign spoof. And btw, just look what was asessed even at the time above on how many will reach the border.

It does. White people are more susceptible to skin cancer. Black people suffer more severe cases of skin cancer when they do get it. — Benkei

True. However you doctor treats skin cancer of individuals and doesn't actually categorize you by race. Yet the doctor does categorize you by sex. The doctor won't be looking if you might have cervical cancer when you are categorized to be a male. Your sexual preferences or what you feel your gender is doesn't matter to the doctor.

I understand you are worried that racists will use such categorizations to support or promote their ideology, but they are going to do that anyway. They do it with science, religion...anything they can use. Racists are the problem, not words and categories. — DingoJones

But the whole question here is that if now, thanks to the new wokeness and all, that others than racists have to use these categorizations too. And not using them would somehow be improper: as if not using these categorizations would somehow mean that you are dismissing racism. Hence colorblindness is thought to be as a negative thing. As if people don't understand that treating people as individuals and not based on their skin color is one thing and to dismiss or to deny the existence of racism by referring to colorblindness is another thing.

You see, nobody is denying here that skin color can be a defining identity for many and something they simply cannot avoid sometimes. After all, if you are the only person with one skin color and everybody else is of another skin color, naturally it will separate you. Or take a class or course where the are 100 people and you would be the only one of your sex. Nobody has to sexist or racist, actually. And as I've said earlier, especially collective tragedies are very important to create a collective identity. If your kind of people, be that defining characteristic the color of your skin or the religion you or your family has, have been discriminated and persecuted, then that character surely is something that makes an important part of your identity. You cannot avoid it, just a few racists or religious fanatics surely can surely make you feel it. And I think nobody here is denying that.

The discussion is that when these identities are put on a pedestal and used as to define you and everybody else and just what people ought to talk about etc. then the problems emerge.

Again, the equivocating is silly. If you overstay a visa you’ve gone through the necessary security points and shown documents. If you hop a border you’ve avoided going through security and showing documents. The wall is to hinder the ones who hop the border, not the ones who overstay their visas. — NOS4A2

So I guess then your line isn't about illegal immigrants in general, just specific illegal immigrants. Very poor illegal immigrants?

Every policy ought to be grounded on facts and reality, not on impressions ignorant voters have on the issues. So if the majority of illegal immigrants don't come over the Mexican-US border somewhere in the desert, that doesn't actually matter. That's those kind minute details people get bored with. Building a wall is something that the simple Trump supporter can picture mentally in his or her mind. Hence it's got to the best way to counter illegal immigration (from Mexico). Simple answers are understandable. Complex policies confuse or bore people.

Especially for Trump the reality doesn't matter, what only matters is if his supporters think that is good. Best example of this is this whimsical idea to deploy "the army" to the border. Because that instills this idea in the Trump supporters that the President is doing something in a "dramatic" way in a "dramatic" situation. People can understand as a measure that "the Army is called in". So increasing the various law-enforcement agencies isn't the option or increasing the Border guard isn't an option either. Nope, have the US Army go there. It's dramatic. The effectiveness of this is quite debatable starting from things like what authorities and when has the army compared to the border guard and police, but who cares. Any kind of critique of Trumps actions is just those Trump-haters hating Trump.

Trump has stated himself that this is his modus operandi. Actually Trump let the media himself to see this with one perfect example. When Trump was interviewing general Mattis for the post of secretary of defence the issue of the effectiveness of torture came up. The marine general said that giving a beer and a pack of cigarettes works far better that torturing a prisoner, but Trump personally disagreed. He stated that because Americans think that torture works, then he thinks that torture works. And these people have learned that from Hollywood: the no-nonsense hero willing to go the extra mile and who doesn't give a shit about protocol will by whacking the terrorist get him to spill the beans where the nuclear warhead is. And besides the lousy terrorist deserves the beating anyway. So what actual intelligence people and the military on the ground think about torture doesn't matter. Hence it doesn't matter for Trump.



And hence we can understand Trump's obsession with the wall and why it has to be a "big, beautiful wall". His supporters might be OK with the idea that some intelligent barrier of barbed wire with a network of smart detectors with quick reaction teams would physically be more effective and be far cheaper. They could understand that focus on the US-Mexican land border might then turn the problem to the Coast Guard. They could admit to it and understand the "wall" being more of a metaphor. But just how closed or open the border is doesn't matter. It isn't the issue at all here: the issue would be that if Trump didn't build exactly the wall, then all the Trump haters could laugh at him at not building the wall. This is what Trump is most concerned about: if people could say that he has broke his promise. It all comes down to his own self centered narcissism and that he doesn't believe he could win over people that didn't vote for him. For Trump these issues are just rhetoric, a discussion he has to be on top with his tweets. Actual facts don't matter so much.

My point was that each individual, no matter how you classify them, knows what’s in his best interests better than some aloof technocrat who spent his whole life in a classroom. I’d rather be governed by those who work in my local grocery store than the entire faculty at Harvard. — NOS4A2

And that's why we have a representative democracy in our republics. And unlike the US, here we don't even have things like felony disenfranchisement.

The only intolerant bigots are those who ban others — NOS4A2

Call it a ban or not, but the conspiracy buffs don't take it lightly when someone that has argued that one conspiracy is true then states that another one isn't. Or that the government / security system performs well in other issues or is correct in some other case. Likely he or she will be seen as a "turncoat" who has "sold" the cause, gone over back or perhaps been always on the other side. Once your audience and income depends on a specific crowd, then you will shape your message to that crowd.

So equivocating between border-hopping and going through an official point of entry is silly. But then again, who cares about actual reality? — NOS4A2

Because Illegal Immigration mostly happens through official points of entry! So yes, who does care about actual reality?

These immigrants, who enter countries legally on student, tourist, or work visas and then stay past their visa’s expiration date, are often overlooked in the discussion of illegal immigration. But in the past 10 years, visa overstays in the United States have outnumbered border crossings by a ratio of about 2 to 1

See The Real Illegal Immigration Crisis Isn’t on the Southern Border

Rhetoric and actual implementation of effective policies are two different things.

But the “common man” knows what’s best for himself is my point. The idea that people vote against their best interests is, as you said, snobbery. The accusation could be just as easily used against them. — NOS4A2

And let's not forget that the Common Man is simply a myth.

The Common Man is both a Republican and a Democrat in the US, both an active voter and someone who hasn't bothered to vote. To say that the 'common man' thinks this or that is as wrong as to think that the 'poor' or the 'middle class' or the 'upper class' thinks in one certain way.

You listen to Alex Jones? — NOS4A2

Few times I listened to him, but not anymore. I always thought of him as entertainment and someone that has found his niche audience in the American media field. First he was all about 9/11 conspiracies and even didn't notice the financial crisis. Only when it had long started, Jones added economics into the conspiracies (which actually was telling). But then with the Trump candidacy Mr Jones went to become a true Goebbels like propagandist. Perhaps it's the "logical" response to a person that believes in vast conspiracy theories: if you believe everything is propaganda, then you'll do the same and simply create classic propaganda yourself too. Anyway, there is this problem with the conspiracy buffs: they are an extremely intolerant crowd that isn't open to other kind of ideas (starting from the idea that historical events can happen without anyone actually planning them).

I use “Davos man” strictly as a term of derision. — NOS4A2

Well, for many he exists. Just like the Cultural Marxist that has lurked in the universities and planned all the wokeness and political correctness we see everywhere now.

considering that normal was the politically-correct PR speak of men trained in writing and giving speeches, this is exactly what we wanted. We don’t want varnish and lullabies and the public/private views of career politicians. We want to know what the president is thinking, whether he is right or wrong, silly ideas or not. — NOS4A2

One can be a good communicator, but in truth the ACTUAL POLICIES are what matter. And people don't usually follow the actual policies implemented. As long as the economy is doing for them OK, it doesn't actually matter so much what the administration is actually doing.

Besides, the simply fact is that government policies are extensive complex and have to take into account many issues and details, and explaining them is an arduous task for the listener to listen and understand.

For Trump to say "I'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" is a great line to quote when drinking beer with friends and talking in an unserious way. But as A POLICY it doesn't simply fly. Mexico hasn't paid and won't pay and building concrete barrier to mostly an emptydesert that usually is circumvented by airports or long coasts is an extremely lousy way to spend taxes. It's truly just a monument, not an effective policy. But who cares about actual reality, when then the catchphrase was so awesome to many?

, every political movement ever has known what is best for the people.

Or have you heard about the political movement that declares that they don't know what's best for the people? :yikes:

Besides, the elite seldom truly thinks about what would be best for the people. It would be great if they actual would do that. But usually it's only this condescending snobbery of how stupid the common people are and how they don't get the complex issues at all, or take it the wrong way. And this snobbery can be seen on both sides of the political spectrum. Traditionalist conservative elites and the leftist cultural elites can equally look down upon the common man.

And of course, the common man usually isn't as interested and have as much knowledge of the most complex issues of politics.

The “Davos man”. — NOS4A2

Does the Davos man really exist? Really? There can be people that are invited to the "World Economic Forum" and go there on a usual basis, but in the end this hodgepodge of rich and powerful people don't truly share the same agenda or objectives. That's the conspiracy bullshit of Alex Jones. If you just listen for a while the panels, it ought to be obvious that they don't all agree on what to do. It's actually a perfect example of the conspiratorial side of populism.

Thank for the PF team (and @Wallows and @Amity) that have arranged this meeting and giving forward material!

Looking forward to this. (Will read the blogs and listen to the +2,5 hrs of interviews.)

I am confused. I thought the current situation is nothing but elite bashing. One side bashes government elites while the other is bashing corporate elites. — ZhouBoTong

Well, those who have bashed in history government and corporate elites have been, just to give some examples, a) communists b) national socialists, c) various socialists, d) Occupy Wall street-movement, e) Tea party-movement, f) Trump supporters, g) Brexiteers... and the list goes on.

That's a quite varied group with perhaps the only thing common for them is the idea of the evil elites. That's my point.

Wouldn't they still be acting against international elites? — ZhouBoTong

Once populists are in power, they surely change the focus from evil domestic elites to evil international elites. Populism needs a culprit, an adversary or an enemy.

It seems like madness, but this is needed against the remorseless, fascist chinese government — Evil

That's why China won't pass the West. The Communists will fear so much their own people, they will fear that the protests now emerging in Hong Kong might spread like an infection that they will ruin their future themselves. As I've said, they haven't forgotten Tianamen Square.

When there is no safety valve of the ballot box, it will just go worse and worse.

Notice how the Libertarians are the only ones with no authoritarian positions and all libertarian ones. — Harry Hindu

Even if it's a bit off topic, how about "robust national defence"?

That if anything is a collective endeavor, quite autoritarian and has nothing to do with individual liberty. Citizens having a pistol and a shotgun at home doesn't make at all a "robust national defence".

I understand Cantor's argument well enough to see that there's a pair (1-to-1 correspondence) between the natural numbers and even numbers. — TheMadFool

That's not technically Cantor's diagonal argument. That proof comes into use only with the reals R.

Basically two different bijections are possible. — TheMadFool

Please understand you are not talking of a bijection! It isn't a bijection if one group has more members.
It's either an injection or an surjection. It's the most simple math there is an actually one of the most hardest.

And, if I understand your thought correctly, you are basically saying that there's an injection from E to N. But when you can prove there's a bijection, it doesn't go that it's only an injection.

Yet, understand that you are talking about infinite series. Have you ever heard about the Hilbert Hotel?

For all I know Trump and Co. are lying. But there is no evidence of the motives Dems have attributed to Trump. — NOS4A2

The truth will be in the history books. Typically 20 or 30 years later.

I get it though. Trump is as American as apple pie. He’s the man of reality TV, the beauty pageant, professional wrestling and the casino. This offends a certain quasi-European sensibility, in this case, a legion of technocrats and bureaucrats who have not been able to accomplish half of what Trump has and on so little. — NOS4A2

What on Earth are you talking about? That what you say doesn't matter at all. Some leftist bashing US materialism isn't how actually Europeans view the US or it's Presidents. It's the goddam political actions the administration makes. Or do you have this view that Europeans just hate America or what? I think then you don't get it.

First of all, I only have to watch a session with Trump and Putin answering questions about their summit in Helsinki to see that everything isn't at all right. Similar peculiar behavior US politicians might show when to talking to AIPAC or when visiting Israel. Even then they don't parrot the Israeli line and do occasionally have different ideas. Otherwise, they usually bring up US foreign policy and US agenda, not conform and comply with an obvious adversary's agenda. It simply isn't NORMAL. But Trump has been so fixated with Putin right from the start it really is strange.

There simply is too much of this bullshit with Trump. Just to give one example from many, things like the only thing that the Trump team wanted to change during the Republican national convention was the policy to give arms to Ukraine. Really? That's the thing? I remember when it happened, it was actually immediately discussed. There's just a ton of similar stuff like this.

Naturally the whole administration didn't and hasn't gone with the Pro-Putin line. In fact all the pro-Russian people were kicked out of the Trump administration immediately and surely generals like Mattis or McMasters had nothing to do with this. Basically it's left to Tweeter-in-Chief to make these strange gaffes like wanting to create a joint US-Russian Join Cyber Unit Security Unit. Trump usually has had to backtrack with these silly ideas (as he did with the Join Cyber Unit), but the effort ought to be noticed.

All of that is a complete fabrication with zero evidence. — NOS4A2

It is strangely a totally blind spot for some Americans.

Similar behavior I witnessed on the old PF site with some Americans having the urge to defend George Bush and the War in Iraq: that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda, the threat of WMD's was evident. Then the intelligence services lied to him or he couldn't have known there weren't any WMD's around anymore. The quite open and very well documented active pushing for the war in Iraq by the vice-President were simply ignored as Trump's ties to Russia and actions today. Nope, it seemed to be a calling for them to back their prez and defend him on a philosophy forum.

And this case?

I myself noticed something was strange when Trump came out with his Foreign Policy team in March 2016 (if I remember correctly) and some guys bewildered the Washington circles...guys which later then came around in the investigations. So I've myself been actively following the issue from early 2016.

Have to say Trump is as open as can be. How everything looks typically is like it is.

It truly is mind opening. Even now it's a puzzle for us just what it opens to us.

When we show with Cantor's diagonal argument that there isn't a bijection between N and R, it's not anymore such a simple proof that we are used to, but an reductio ad absurdum proof. And this has profound implications, which shows itself with the Continuum Hypothesis.

Furthermore, we get using a similar technique as the diagonal argument, Gödel's incompleteness theorem's and Turing's answer to the Entscheidungsproblem. And in another way Russell's paradox. All of them in one way or another use what I'd call a negative self-reference.

There is room for philosophical criticism of the assumptions involved — Eee

Sure.

Starting from the fact that we don't know the answer to the Continuum Hypothesis. Which tells us quite plainly that we still don't understand everything about mathematical infinity.

Repeating the Clinton line. Alt-facts. — NOS4A2

Oooh, seems you a have a new take on this! Umm...pizzagate.

Earlier Trump said it was sarcasm.

So what is the crime? — NOS4A2

Right, willingly taking help from a foreign adversarial intelligence service and then pressuring other countries to dig up dirt at your opponent. Or to say it with legal terms, us the office to solicit a foreign country, to interfere in the 2020 US election campaign.

And I'd think you could enlarge this with checking Trump's and his son-in-laws dealings with the Saudi's, because the absolute confusion in US policy in the Middle East with suddenly White House taking a very Pro-Saudi view totally opposite to the US foreign policy before (and the secretary of state learning this only later) hints simply at corruption.

Anyway, the US foreign policy is in total disarray.

Lying to Congress. — NOS4A2

Which in my view is then OK to have an impeachment hearing. Being actually impeached or resigning as Nixon did is another matter. Then the Republicans had enough of Watergate. Today likely the whole thing wouldn't even come up.

Yet the story with Trump is quite obvious. Everything you read just basically paints the same picture of this guy.

Clinton was acquitted. More evidence of a two-tiered justice system. — NOS4A2

Evidence?

Well, let's see how the impeachment of agent Trumpov goes...

And of course, lying about a blowjob and lying about getting support from Russian intelligence services is naturally the same thing... :smirk:

How can it be, that people are put to court or impeached because of lying?

A man will face years in prison because he made mistakes during the process of an investigation of which there is no underlying crime. — NOS4A2

What tyranny that a man cannot lie under oath and tamper witnesses.

Where's the justice?

Is the justice state dead?

I'd have that Pizzagate this time at night.

But it would be bad for my health and my looks.

All of which occurred during the previous administration. But instead of investigating apprehending the culprits, they spied on, investigated and prosecuted the victims of the alleged influence campaign. Stone is such a victim. This was an abuse of power, and this is why investigations are now occurring. — NOS4A2

What are you talking about?

Uh, of course the 2016 elections happened on Obama's term. Umm...I don't know where you are going with this?

INSTEAD of investigating the culprits? Yes, they did investigate the culprits. They could make the links to even some individual Russian intelligence people. It's there in the Mueller report and even earlier.

Abuse of pow...Oh God.

Would that include people who constantly talk about white privilege? — DingoJones

There's an old saying: If you are in a debate with a German and you are totally losing the argument, then to win just use the Hitler card and say: "Well, Your people slaughtered the Jews!" And if the German brushes it off (as the matter would have nothing to do with the argument), then you can accuse him of brushing off the Holocaust as something unimportant! It's a great classic strawman and I promise that it typically works at Germans: they have start admitting how bad Hitler was. It has been going on for generations.

So one just has to look if a people have something to say or if the people simply will choose the subject as some power play.

Just the words (including the frequency you mention) are not enough. What matters is what the person means, what the intent of those words are. — DingoJones

Well, if people just note words like a simple computer algorithm totally separate from sentences that have a meaning, it's not quite useful to talk to those kind of people anyway.

Sometime it can be observed even here. Just use the new hyped up lingo that Trump and friends use in a longer post and likely someone will attack you angrily without even reading the damn thing to the end. Try things like taxes, immigration controls or vice versa multiculturalism etc.

Anything?

What's with the denial NOS4A2? Trump is the most Pro-Russian US president ever.

1) Russia intervened in your elections. As it has intervened in other elections.
2) It is very unlikely that this mattered much, because the Dems just had the worst candidate ever
3) The Trump team oblivious of everything welcomed the support because the likely had no idea that the FBI is obligated to look what foreign intelligence services do in the US.
4) A guy like Roger Stone boasted about his contacts and then lied about it. Case closed.

So the Dems now have avoided a serious discussion of just why they picked a bad candidate that many people hate by saying that the election was stolen.

My argument is like Cantor's diagonal argument regarding the absence of bijection between the real numbers and the natural numbers — TheMadFool

No, your not doing that.

So we pair the members of E with the even numbers in N. We can do that perfectly and with each member of E in bijection with the even number members of N. What now of the odd numbers in N? — TheMadFool

Do understand what you are making with a bijection: every member of E has a pair in N and vice versa. That is a bijection, one to one correspondence. You are now somehow assuming it wouldn't be a bijection, but either a surjection or an injection.

The idea is most easily understood like this:

Natural number N: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...

Then multiply EVERY natural number by two.

:1x2, 2x2, 3x2, 4x2, 5x2,....

Then you get even numbers.
E:2, 4, 6,8, 10,...

And you can do with let's say by 10 000.

Hence there is a bijection between
N: 1,2,3,4,5...

and the infinite series
:10 000, 20 000, 30 000, 40 000, 50 000,...

even if there is 9 999 numbers "in between".

Yes, very interesting. Putin should take care with Europe because a large revenue stream comes from the gas pipeline to Europe. As far as I know most of the wealth in Russia comes from fossil fuels. If this falls he will be in trouble. — Punshhh

This is the crucial issue. Putin's aggressive stance isn't in the end at all the best way to handle these issues.

You see in Central Asia once after 9/11 happened, the US established bases and started military cooperation with the "Stans". Yet in this case Russia simply waited it out. And what do you know: there are NO active US bases in Central Asia apart from Afghanistan. None. The logistical support for the Afghan was is flown from a NATO country Romania, if I remember correctly. So the neocons came, hassled around... and left. Russia stayed. Simply by waiting passively the Russians held their ground.

This could have been a similar politicy when Ukraine went up in flames. Simply to have the Ukrainians have again a color revolution of some sort and simply keep cool and now that the disaster called Ukraine won't get into NATO. Above all, Ukraine would have a large section of Pro-Russian people voting and the ties to EU would be totally different. NATO wouldn't have waken up from the slumber it was in and would still be looking for a reason to exist.

But no. Putin can go now into the history books with annexing back Crimea, an economic disaster zone with not much to give Russia else than historical prestige. And after annexing parts from two countries now the Europeans won't brush it aside. In the end the outcome could be expected from a former head of the FSB that in order to improve his popularity first started a war by blowing up apartment buildings in a Moscow suburb.