I agree that things are different in the Middle East. But religion and state are also intertwined in the West. The relationship works differently, that's all. — Ludwig V

We shall see. My understanding is that over the long term, Islamists seek to take over the west. Maybe that's just right wing propaganda.

I think you are paying to much attention to the fundamentalists - who are a problem, but not an existential threat, I think. — Ludwig V

I'll grant you than in the 1970, US and European radical leftists set off a lot of bombs and killed a lot of people, but the rest of us survived.

So, how many Islamic terror bombings are ok with you? They just tried to pull off a terrorist attack at a Taylor Swift concert. Myself, I am not a big fan of Muslim extremism, and on average these days, there's way too much of it.

The biggest threat is not from Islam, but from Putin and Xi Jinping. Putin is (officially) Christian and Xi Jinping (officially) communist. Both are actually old-fashioned imperialists, just like the West was in the 19th and early 20th century. — Ludwig V

The Chinese are not US and British domestic terrorists. And I'm sure you know how Xi handles his Muslims. He puts them in concentration camps in western China. I don't support him in that. I support the plight of the Uyghurs. These are all complicated issues. I don't have to be ignoring Xi just because I'm opposed to Islamic terrorism.

I don't know for sure who will win. But I think the West has a very good chance. — Ludwig V

People have been predicting the fall of the west for about a century now I think. Spengler, the Decline of the West.

Are you sure it is not a fake? — Ludwig V

You joking?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/01/23/keir-starmer-take-knee-culture-wars-blm-rnli-national-trust/

Plus you know things have gotten worse the past few days. Starmer's throwing protesters in prison for long terms. He threw some old guy in prison for a Facebook post. He's threatened to arrest and extradite Americans for exercising our free speech rights. He can't do that, we have the First Amendment here. He's gone mad as far as I can tell. His double-standard with respect to violent Muslim rioting is obvious.

Taking the knee is not the same thing as burning down the country. — Ludwig V

Like Walz burning down Minneapolis?

Anyway the point of the knee is the two-tier justice to rioters. And, the British establishment's ignoring the opposition of Englishmen to rampant uncontrolled immigration the past decade or two.

You can't infer from the fact that he takes the knee against racism (or even against what happened to George Floyd), that he doesn't oppose burning down the country. — Ludwig V

Oh please. Floyd was a violent career criminal who died of a fentanyl overdose. He took the knee to violent leftist rioters and throws the book at violent rightist rioters. Two-tier.

I haven't heard/seen any reports of any violent Muslim extremists. — Ludwig V

You joking again? I didn't feel like digging out specific news stories, but there are plenty. People aren't complaining about two tier justice in a vaccuum.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/11/uk-two-tier-treats-far-right-attacks-less-harshly-islamist-violence-rusi

The issue is that you can't enforce immigration laws unless most ordinary citizens will help you. — Ludwig V

Trump implemented a Stay in Mexico policy that was effective in cutting down the problem. On his first day in office Biden overturned that and about 40 other Trump immigration policies. Then the last few months of this election year, Biden has tightened the border and cut down on his immigration problem. The government can turn illegal immigration on and off like a faucet. The current hordes coming in, in the US and in England, are a matter of government policy.

Most ordinary people in the UK (and, so far as I can see, the US) will not (or perhaps cannot) help enforce the rules. It does mean something much more like a police state than we are happy to live with. But you can't have it both ways. — Ludwig V

A government can enforce its borders. Biden and both parties in England have chosen not to. It's not a police state to prevent people from entering your country illegally. You don't need "average people" to patrol the border. You simply need to have the border guards do their jobs instead of telling them not to.

I remember, back when UK was in the EU that the middle class (not just the rich) were delighted with the cheap Polish plumbers and builders that they could employ. UK plumbers and builders were somewhat less enthusiastic. Now, plumbing and building are much more expensive and difficult to get done. Again, after COVID there was a serious shortage of HGV drivers which resulted in rapid increases in transportation costs (and delays in supply chains). Manufacturers and customers alike were very unhappy. HGV drivers were too busy making lots of money by driving to tell anyone how happy they were. Nobody thinks about how things affect other people. — Ludwig V

Cheap labor is always popular. But who gets hurt? The people legally here, the natives, who are perhaps in the trades themselves and who can't compete with the cheap labor.

In any event no nation, can import massive hordes of third-world immigrants with no understanding of and no respect for that nation's culture and laws.

You can't expect to tell the world how well you are doing economically and expect people who have no prospects where they are not to come and join in the feast. The root cause of immigration, legal and illegal, is the unequal distribution of wealth across the world. The only way to stop it is to make sure that international trade benefits everyone. — Ludwig V

Yeah yeah root causes. I'm all for addressing root causes. Meanwhile control the border. Because if you don't, you won't be able to suppress enough free speech to stop the tidal wave of resentment that's coming. Didn't the Tories just get swept out because they FAILED to deliver on their promise of controlling immigration?

I think it became very clear during the last few days what the people think, don't you? — Ludwig V

I wouldn't know ... I actually don't know what you're referring to. People who speak out against immigration are being thrown in Starmer's prisons. So clearly we are not hearing people's true feelings.

It is indeed grossly over-blown.
I hear a lot about the possibility of civil war in the US. What do you think? — Ludwig V

I think that's overblown too!!

Yes, I know that what happened to George Floyd was contested and I don't really know what the truth of the matter was. How do you know that the mainstream account is all a lie? Everyone lies, not just the Government. — Ludwig V

Floyd was a violent career criminal who died of a fentanyl overdose. His police force threw him under the bus. That's supported by the facts.

So some say on the right, but the bill is pretty popular based on the polling I've seen and some swing voter focus groups seem to be upset at Trump for what he did. — Mr Bee

IMO the Dems have been able to spin the defeat of the bill as the Republicans blocking immigration reform. I did read the details of the bill at the time, and it would only have codified the existing mess, and made the GOP complicit in it. So the GOPs were right to block the bill, whether or not the public understands that. That would be my take.

Harris was smart to use it. They'll be running ads of Lankford saying it's a good bill from now until November. They're not gonna win on the issue of course but they can always muddle it and weaken an attack line. — Mr Bee

I don't deny that it is a talking point for the Dems. The GOPs have a hard time getting their point of view out. As I recall, Jeh Johnson, Obama's head of Homeland Security, said that more than 1500 illegal entries a day is a disaster. The bill allows up to 5000 before they even begin to do anything. More than three disasters a day. Why should the GOP sign on to that?

Because labels don't matter as much over policies. She's getting rid of the unpopular policies while keeping the popular ones. People care about border security more but they probably don't want kids to starve in school. That's the problem with using a single label to describe a large set of unrelated beliefs. — Mr Bee

Nonetheless, positions get classified as left or right. I agree with many liberal positions and disagree with many of Republican and conservative positions. Most of them, actually, as a fallen liberal. Matt Taibbi referred to himself the other day as a disaffected liberal. Of course he gets called a right winger too. Any liberal who strays off the plantation gets smeared as a right winger. In England you're a right winger if you object to little girls being stabbed to death. Ugly doings in Brit politics these days.

That implies that centrists always win which is certainly not true. The centrist coalition of Macron collapsed in France just recently to both the far-right and the far-left. — Mr Bee

Yes I agree. Someone noted that both Trump and Kamala are appealing to their respective bases. A "turnout" election rather than a "persuasion" one. Instead of trying to persuade the middle, both sides just want to whip up their base. The worst kind of brain dead politics on both sides IMO. Remember when Trump survived his assassination attempt (or it was all a massive psyop of some kind, but never mind that for the moment) and he came to the convention calling for Unity? That didn't last five minutes. He picked Vance, who's on the ticket to throw red meat to the base. I hate it. I was really hoping Trump would try to be a unifier. I wish SOMEONE would.

It's a pretty extensive record (just coped and pasted a list I found online):

- universal free school meals
- legal weed
- carbon free electricity by 2040
- tax rebates for the working class up to $1,300 (making under $150k per year)
- 12 weeks paid family leave
- 12 weeks paid sick leave
- banned conversion therapy
- red flag laws for guns
- universal background checks for guns
- automatic voter registration
- free public college (under $80k)
- ban on PFAS (forever chemicals)
- $2.2 billion increase in k-12 school funding
- sectoral bargaining for nursing home workers
- opposed Wall St bailouts in 2008
- voted against outsourcing deals
- supports lifting a moratorium on nuclear energy in Minnesota
- 100% rating from Planned Parenthood
- banned non-compete clauses
- raised minimum wage for small businesses
- raised taxes on multinational corporations
- protected gender affirming care
- banned medical providers from withholding care over debt
- protected construction workers from wage theft
- massive Minnesota infrastructure bill
- backed the Iran deal — Mr Bee

Thank you so much!!!! I think I'll cc my friend @Mikie. Hey Mikie this is the list I'd have posted to you if I felt like looking it all up. Thank you Mr Bee, much obliged.

I don't think you'll like all of them but there's a reason why progressives wanted him. — Mr Bee

I agree with some of those positions. Especially that fraudulent 2008 bailout. As the kids at Occupy said -- remember Occupy? -- Banks got bailed out, we got sold out!. Truer words never spoken.

The point, anyway, isn't agreement or disagreement with the positions. After all Democrats are perfectly happy with most of those. The point, as I think you agree with me, is that Walz is a leftist ... and why'd Kam pick a leftist if she's frantically paddling toward the center? Was against fracking now she's for it. Enabled Biden's open borders now she pretends to be an immigration hawk.

Seriously, who believes Kamala's an immigration hawk? She's on record wanting health care for illegals, and saying that illegal immigration isn't a crime (it is). So she's lying her ass off. But she may get away with it. We shall see.

In 2016 he was a new face and people at the very least loved that he shook up politics. Nowadays he's old news which is why I think he's likely to lose. — Mr Bee

Agree. Also in 2016 when he insulted people he was funny as hell. At least he was to me. When Megyn Kelly asked him at the first GOP debate if he was a demeaning asshole to women (not the exact words), he said, "Only to Rosie!" I just cracked up.

These days he's just angry and resentful. He won't let go of 2020. He's clearly not the man he was in 2020. I think he may well have a touch of the same kind of cognitive issues Biden's got. Trump is 78 and he's been through enormous stress the past four years.

I agree with you that he has a very good chance to lose. He could improve his chances of winning by staying focussed on the issues, but he's completely incapable of doing that.

Fraudulent media-protected campaign or not, Kam is out-working and out-hustling him. She could win.

The fundamental contrast in this race where it's old vs. new just doesn't work out to his benefit where it did with Biden when it was strength vs weakness or with Clinton when it was the outsider vs the corrupt insider. Kamala may not be the best candidate but she's a new face in a race where people wanted anything but Biden or Trump again, and that will probably be what will convince those undecided swing voters at the end of the day. People hated the status quo in 2016 and thought they had nothing to lose if they elected Donald, even if they had serious reservations about him. — Mr Bee

Yup. Trump carries enormous baggage. And Kam's better than Hillary. I personally do not dislike Kamala as much as I dislike Hillary.

People aren't complaining about that as much now. They're complaining about the price of groceries which haven't really gone down with gas and likely won't if it goes down any further. — Mr Bee

It's Trump's job to remind them of energy policy and the wild Biden-Harris overspending. Instead he's snarling about her rally crowds being faked. Maggie Haberman in the NYT reported that he's privately called her a "bitch." Seems Kam really has thrown Trump off balance.

That's actually what none of us foresaw. With all her weaknesses, Kamala is uniquely able to flummox Trump. She draws a big crowd and he fumes and throws out insults, instead of reminding people of the price of gas when he left office. He just can't find his groove. He used to be able to insult people to beat them but he can't do that with Kamala, it just makes him look small.

Certainly seems like they moved on from tampons and the BLM riots, — Mr Bee

We will be hearing much more about that after the Dem convention I imagine. I hope, anyway.

though we'll see how effective this line of attack is. As a layperson who understands nothing about the military, this whole tactic just comes across as a little gross. If this were a case of Walz just outright lying about being in the military entirely then I can understand but it seems like they're splitting hairs about whether he was in combat or not and seemingly undermining the decades of service he's done otherwise. — Mr Bee

He's repeatedly shown bad character, lying about his service, lying about his combat experience, lying about his rank, leaving (admittedly as was his legal right) just before his unit was to deploy to Iraq. A lot of his fellow soldiers are speaking out against him over that.

Of course Bill Clinton notoriously ducked out of military service, and it didn't hurt him. So it's just one issue out of many.

That and the fact that their guy actively avoided the Vietnam draft due to bonespurs yet feels like he can attack war heroes for what they've done. — Mr Bee

That's why Trump lets Vance do the attacking on the military issue.

Shocking. — Mikie

I made a long list of Walz's leftist positions, from making Minnesota a sanctuary state for underage trans surgeries, to meeting five times with a Muslim cleric who admires Hitler. But there isn't much point. You're only here to argue a position, not have an intelligent discussion. Let me know if you ever have a substantive point to make.

But way, way outside the scope of vector spaces I ever encountered, — jgill

Pretty weird stuff ...

Your quote includes something I didn't say. So I am not sure what you are replying to. — Lionino

Sorry, must be quoting issues.

No, it was a contrarian joke implying that people (me) don't study them. — Lionino

Oh I get it.

Speaking of category theory, I came in contact with it (again) to explore the subject of vector spaces with irrational dimensions. Naturally, vector spaces traditionally defined have a dimension n, n E N, naturally because the set of its basis can't have π elements, but something like that is the case of fusion categories, if a mathoverflow user is to be trusted. — Lionino

Wow that's a new one on me. The Wiki page on the subject is brief and unhelpful.

How would a vector space dimension work that wasn't a positive integer? Have a link?

ps ... found this.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1466820/vector-spaces-with-fractional-dimension

Typical Trump cultist response: the guy repeating Fox News talking points accuses his opponent of— wait for it— repeating “talking points.” — Mikie

What's weird isn't that you think I watch FOX News. It's that you think ANYONE watches FOX News. That's not where alt-news comes from, hasn't been for quite some time. There's a huge media ecosystem out there.

I can hear this on CNN — Mikie

So YOU'RE the last one watching CNN!

She's certainly moving right on some issues but not others. One example is the border where she's clearly just attached herself to the bipartisan border bill Trump killed. Walz it seems is going along with that pivot. — Mr Bee

That bill is a total fake. It's designed to codify the ongoing disaster but get Republicans to sign on to it. They wisely declined. And then Biden turned around and issued the executive orders he'd had the power to issue all along, and the numbers of crossers are being reduced just in time for the election, and showing that he didn't need the bill after all.

Same with her pivot on fracking. — Mr Bee

She was never against fracking. It's a Republican lie that she was ever against fracking. Also she was never the border czar. LOL. Orwelling retconning.

But you are agreeing with my point. Yes she is trying to tack to the center and renounce or deny many of her former leftist positions. So why pick a leftist as veep? That undermines her centrism.

That being said, she's still in favor of alot of the things that Walz did and is clearly not choosing to moderate on every single issue. I guess she's betting on labels being less important than the actual policies themselves. — Mr Bee

Both Trump and Kamala are appealing to their respective bases, and nobody's making a play for the center. Whichever one of them figures out that elections are decided in the center will win.

I do think Harris and Walz are better on the issues if you go into detail about them, which is why I think it could backfire if the GOP start attacking Walz for legalizing weed or giving Minnesota paid family leave. — Mr Bee

I think it's the tampons in the boys' room that's triggering some on the right. I actually don't even know much about his actual policies in office.

Trump and Vance are able to win on the issues if it's more vibes based though. People feel like the economy sucks because of high prices. — Mr Bee

All those new jobs are going to immigrants. That's why the job numbers look good but the workers are grumpy. It comes down to immigration, Trump's strongest issue and Kamala's weakest.

He should be hitting her on immigration. Instead he's yammering about her race. And the other day at a rally he attacked the Republican governor of Georgia. He's so undisciplined. He just can not focus on what's important. I think he's lost a step too. In 2016 when he insulted people he was funny. Now he's just angry. This race could go either way. The guy is 78 and he's looking every day of it lately.

What does Trump actually plan to do about it? Apparently drill more and flood the global market in oil to crash gas prices but that isn't gonna bring grocery prices down obviously. — Mr Bee

It'll bring energy prices down. Biden's energy policy, which is also Harris's, has been terrible. Americans know that.

Drill more and crash gas prices? You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not. It's a very good thing.

One thing that may make it worse is his idea for a 10% tariff on all imported goods (and 60% on Chinese goods), which if you believe that higher taxes means higher prices for the consumer as it trickles down, would obviously be inflationary to the average voter. Trump assures us that it's not inflationary somehow but... — Mr Bee

I'm on record against Trump's tariffs. They hurt American consumers, and then when other countries put tariffs on our goods in response, it hurts American producers.

Yeah that answer specifically was why I compared him to Bernie. He doesn't adopt the label like he does but he certainly doesn't shy away from it either. — Mr Bee

Like I say ... Kam tacks to the center and she picks a proud socialist as her veep. Bad pick. Not to mention today's Stolen Valor brouhaha. Walz is technically in violation of a Federal felony, one that he himself voted into law. Which by the way is a bad look for Kam's campaign in that the issue caught them by surprise. They should have vetted him more closely and been prepared to deal with the military stuff.

I hear it's about 50-50 in the betting markets. Kam's had a bad week because of Walz, but Trump's not really capitalizing.

I'm actually quite concerned for the country no matter who wins.

You put too much effort in a post towards someone who won't learn from disagreement. In another thread, he said that he is quite sure about he was talking about, and in the same post he said that the twin paradox is a paradox in Newtonian physics only and not in relativity.

I had to read through that individual's entire post to realize it didn't make any sense. No matter. Maybe something I wrote was interesting to someone.
— Lionino

People study the 15th century British kings and queens
— fishfry

Study who? — Lionino

Sorry did I get my history wrong? Not sure what you meant. I was making the point that people find value in studying all kinds of stuff so why not math. Was my analogy off the mark?

Yeah I think there's one problem with that: — Mr Bee

Yeah I think I saw that somewhere. Guess the Dems will put that on a loop. So it goes.

You have a disinterest because you were wrong and are unwilling to admit it. That's called not being able to have a conversation. — Benkei

Brother, give it a rest.

ps -- You are a lot like your profile pic!

But thanks for providing watered-down versions of what Fox News and Tucker Carlson told you to believe. — Mikie

Whatever. That's a stupid talking point which you repeat endlessly.

I've always wondered how Republicans would try to run against a Bernie like figure, which Walz does remind me of. He's a progressive who not only supports but has enacted a number of left policies and more importantly doesn't seem to shy away from it. Hell he even kind of looks like him. The only difference is that instead of a being a grumpy old man he comes across as a relatable dad (plus being more on the large side). — Mr Bee

I agree that he comes off as likable and folksy, that's the word that gets used a lot. I believe his leftism draws attention to the very leftism that Harris is trying to move away from. In fact it's Walz's association with the Floyd riots that draws attention to Kamala's role in them. That's why I think he's a mistake. But time will tell on that. Voters may like him. It's clear that Kam and Walz win the likability contest.

In fact I read somewhere that if the voters decide on likability, Harris and Walz win; and if they decide on the issues, the economy and immigration and so forth, Trump and Vance win. Clearly Trump and Vance are the grumpy pair and Harris and Walz are the happy pair. I agree with that and likability goes a very long way in politics.

Of course the problem for the GOP is that once you get into the details of his ideas, they're actually pretty popular based on most polling I've seen. I mean the right will still try to paint Walz as a "radical" who would try to turn the Midwest into Venezuela but then again they would literally say for any Democrat even if the VP pick were Joe Manchin. I think there's a good chance such a move could very well backfire on them if they're gonna try saying that popular policies like free school lunches are a bad thing. — Mr Bee

Ok. My understanding is that he used to be more of a centrist and his policies have moved left. He did say that socialism is like neighborliness. I expect the GOP to put that on endless loop. In recent years he does have a pretty liberal record. We'll have to see how all this plays out.

I don't see how they turned on a dime when they spend weeks publicly agonising what to do. — Echarmion

You didn't see the media and the Dems turn on a dime from fretting about Kamala to coronating her? Ok. People see what they see.

I just don't believe Biden ever had much personal support. He was the incumbent and the default choice with no serious opposition. — Echarmion

Clyburn and the Congressional Black Caucus were strongly behind him. Many millions of voters were behind him.

Well I am glad we agree on the basic facts. — Echarmion

Ok. So you agree with me that Biden is in very bad shape and that we're being lied to.

So I wonder, as an American, are you ok with that? The world is blowing up and the president is out to lunch. How do you think this plays out in an international crisis? I really want to understand your point of view on this. Personally, I'm concerned.

You haven't even begun to address the points I raised so you reducing this to mere opinion reflects your inability to actually have a converation. — Benkei

I haven't got an inability to have a conversation. I have a disinterest in having this conversation. You are hung up on a word regarding an event that's already two weeks out of the news cycle.

If you don't like the word coup, suggest a different word and if it makes you happy I'll tell you I can live with it, and we'll move on. This is such a fascinating election, I don't see why you want to just lock onto that one word to the exclusion of all the other things of interest in the entire world.

It's not just semantics, which is a ridiculous reduction of the discussion. You are claiming to analyse the situation but in fact are just repeating dumb shit from Fox News. No power has transferred, no rules were broken. No coup. Having actually lost this discussion since you fail to provide a rebuttal to actual arguments you first try to gaslight me and now pretend it's just another opinion. Only reason you're doing it is because you're incapable of investigating and challenging your own opinions on the matter. — Benkei

Ok, I get that you feel that way.

I've repeatedly stated what it was: he withdrew his candidacy. And no, it doesn't matter who's idea it was. — Benkei

I'm happy to allow you to have the last word on that subject.

It's quite clear, also in your interactions with other posters you don't want to talk politics at all. You're only here to display your unswerving loyalty to a buffoon. That's fine but don't expect anyone here to take you seriously. — Benkei

I disagree. Have a nice evening.

I was wondering why she picked Walz, but then I watched him speak, and he's very talented on the stump, very folksy and much better than she is, so I think I know their strategy now. The whole point of Walz is to take the focus off Harris. — RogueAI

I haven't seen him speak, except for the short clip where he says that socialism is just neighborliness. Expect to see that in Trump ads.

I do hear that he's folksy and comes off as regular folks. Good all-American dad resume, soldier, teacher, etc. But just below the surface are many exploitable flaws. He bailed (legally, but still) on his National Guard service just before he was to be deployed to Iraq. Then lied about it, saying he's carried weapons of war into battle (not exact quote) when in fact he never served in a war zone. So there are character issues and political weaknesses that cast doubt on Kam's judgment.

Of course that's just politics. Not claiming a monopoly on truth; only noting the political attacks that he's vulnerable to.

The whole point of Walz is to take the focus off Harris. — RogueAI

Now here I disagree. Walz is up to his eyeballs in the burning of Minneapolis. That brings that whole issue back into play; and reminds everyone that Kamala supported a bail fund to release violent arrestees who used their new found freedom to commit worse crimes.

So the choice of Walz puts the spotlight on Kam's leftist acts during the Floyd riots. Putting the focus right on her. I do therefore disagree that he takes the focus off her. By putting the riots into play, he spotlights one of her biggest vulnerabilities.

Democrats, for all their DEI talk, would be thrilled if Harris could morph into a liberal Mitt Romney-esque white guy. — RogueAI

Yes. Correct. Agreed. So why does Kam pick a hard leftist who will reminds us all of the 2020 Minneapolis riots, and Kamala's role in them? It totally undermines her tack to the center.

They didn't want her in the first place. Black women are risky in American politics. White guys are safe bets. — RogueAI

Not true. Look at all the powerful black woman politicians these days. White guys are yesterday's news, have you not noticed?

Dems think Trump is an existential threat, and they want to beat him more than they want to check off racial boxes. They don't want risk. If they could get away with Harris and Walz trading places, they would do it in a heartbeat, but they're stuck with Harris. — RogueAI

No I do not believe so. Harris signals the takeover of the Democratic party by the northern California political machine of Pelosi, Feinstein, Willie Brown, Newsom, and father and son governors Pat and Jerry Brown, backed by the powerful family money of the Gusts and the Gettys. A lot of Democrats are not happy about this, even though they're on board her candidacy. Her ascent has long been planned. She is no accident.

There would be no point in running Walz at the top of the ticket. Harris is a much more attractive candidate. It's funny how a nation that elected Obama twice is suddenly so full of racists. Weak liberal talking point IMO, if you don't mind my saying.

Actions speak louder than words (and who, outside MAGA, believes Trump anyway?). People will remember it was his judges that got Roe overturned and know he will pick the same kind of judges in the future. — RogueAI

Not disagreeing. Just saying that he wisely tacked toward the center, at least in rhetoric. Talking campaign tactics, not abortion policy. His VP pick undermined his centrist move. I mentioned that to compare it to Kamala doing the exact same thing ... tacking to the center and then undermining herself by picking a leftist. Remember in 2008 Obama was a leftist trying to brand himself a centrist, and he picked Joe Biden, a Washington fixture everyone thought of as a centrist. Obama didn't pick Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders. That's my point.

Actually, he’s a great pick and the one thing she’s gotten right so far. — Mikie

Wow, she actually made the best choice. I’m surprised, but I’m happy she did it. Now I can spell his name correctly (Walz). — Mikie

Let me explain why she hurt herself with this pick.

I am not making a partisan point. I'm just analyzing this as I would a sporting event that I don't have a rooting interest in. Or, if I do, I'm not allowing that to bear on my observations. I know you are a bit partisan, but you're the one who claims she made a good choice and I disagree, so I'll tell you why. I'd say this if I were for Trump, which I am; but especially if I were for Harris, which I'm not. But the analysis goes either way.

Or to put that another way: I don't know if you'll understand what I'm going to say. But perhaps someone else will.

Kamala made the exact same mistake that Trump did!

A few weeks ago, Trump was asked his position on abortion. Many of his supporters are rabid pro-lifers. But Trump did something he rarely does, think strategically. He simply said he'd leave it to the states and he'd say no more. That angered his pro-life base, but where else are they going to go? And he was smart enough to realize that he blunted the worst attacks of the left. They can't say he's against abortion. He just said he's agnostic and to leave it to the states.

So Trump makes this clever strategic tack towards the center; something every politician has to do after they win their primaries. (Well, assuming one is in a political party that actually bothers to hold primaries, unlike certain UNdemocratic parties I could name).

Then what does he do? He selects Vance, who is in favor of a nationwide ban on abortion, wants to arrest women who cross state lines for an abortion, makes snide remarks about women in a highly gendered election.

His VP choice completely undermined his own clever strategy! So he screwed up with Vance.

Now Kamala has been doing the same thing, tacking back to the center. Her MSM minions are busy scrubbing the Internet so that she was never a leftist, was never against fracking, never supported a bail fund for violent BLM/Antifa rioters, never wanted to defund the police.

The Dems have been brilliant at this. Most people don't really follow politics, they don't know that she was named the most leftist Senator in 2019, especially because that Web page got taken off the Internet. Orwell would be proud.

So the Dems have pulled it off. They solve their Biden problem, they coalesce around Kam, they rebrand her as a centrist.

Then what does she do? For veep, she picks a leftists who is tied to the BLM/Antifa riots. She puts the very issue that the tacked away from, right dead center in her path. Now her role in bailing out violent felons who went on to offend again will come out. Now Walz's 48 hour delay in calling out the National Guard will come out. Kamala was trying to paint herself as a centrist, and Walz reminds everyone of her leftist greatest hit.

That's the exact same error Trump made. They both tacked cleverly to the center, then picked veeps that undermined their own strategy.

There's a quote from Walz's wife.

I could smell the burning tires. That was a very real thing, and I kept the windows open as long as I could because I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening,”

https://dailycaller.com/2024/08/06/tim-walz-gwen-smell-burninig-tires-2020-riots/

Pardon the Daily Caller link, the New York Times didn't deign to report this information to their readers.

In other words she sat in the safety of the governor's mansionm protected by armed guards no doubt. And she play-acted in her mind being a great revolutionary, inhaling the smell of the uprising of the people; when what she was doing was fetishizing a poor black neighborhood being burned to the ground to give her a little thrill.

Believe me, Walz is going to wear that quote, and his delay in getting control of the situation, for the next three months. And every day it's going to remind people that Kamala supported a bailout fund for the people who set the fires.

It's all the rest of Walz's extreme liberalism. He supports abortion up to the moment of birth. That's an extreme position supported by a small minority of Americans. He has said "socialism is like neighborliness," a lie that will not play with the very same midwestern voters he's supposed to appeal to.

In short, Kam rebranded herself as a centrist, then picked a leftist that undermines her rebranding. It shows she has bad judgment. She just stalled the two weeks of momentum she'd had, and she's given Trump and Vance a potent avenue of attack. Many such avenues.

You might think you like Walz's politics. That is not at all the point. I hope you can see that. The point is that from an electoral standpoint, Walz shines a light on the very leftism that Kamala was trying to hide.

That's why Walz was a bad pick.

Not to mention the talk, true or not, that she couldn't pick Shapiro because it would upset the Hamas wing of the Democratic party, especially in Michigan.

Terrible pick. Kam just blunted the momentum of her terrific last two weeks, and breathed new life into the Trump/Vance campaign.

ps -- A GOP never-Trumper just wrote a piece in The Hill making the same points I did, but with better writing.

Rather than counterbalancing the narrative that suggests Harris is a “San Francisco liberal,” Walz’s selection reinforces that left-wing brand.

Picking Tim Walz was Kamala Harris’s first campaign mistake

Here's the simple reason why you're not understanding all of this. — night912

This refers to a convo I was in a month ago. I no longer recall the exact point being discussed, nor what I may have said, nor whether I would still say today what I said then.

I'm afraid I can't really engage on this. The sim argument is the kind of thing you have paged into your brain, and then when you're not thinking about it you page it out. Sorry I can't be more responsive to your concerns.

In general there are many reasons why I might not understand something. I believe the other person and I were talking past each other at that point. Some of our basic assumptions differ. Or I could just be dense, missing something obvious or not understanding the argument. I think simulation theory is incoherent, it's essentially meaningless. It doesn't refer to anything. That belief colors everything else that I hear about the topic. So perhaps I am failing to understand in that respect.

You are refusing to acknowledge what the hypothesis is proposing. — night912

That's very insightful of you. You are correct. I find the simulation argument incoherent and devoid of actual content. Or requiring so many unrealistic assumptions as to cross over into speculative fantasy. All in all I think Bostrom's a troll. A high-toned one, to be sure, but a troll nonetheless.

Take note of what's being emphasized there because it's important. It doesn't mean, "to accept the hypothesis as being true." So, instead of looking at our reality as a simulation, as the hypothesis proposed, you're looking at a simulation within our reality. — night912

It's a hypothesis of the argument that future generations of humans much like us enjoy doing ancestor simulations, and that we are one of them. So the argument IS a simulation within our future reality. There are humans, and their self-aware simulations. Leaving unexplained exactly how to make a self-aware simulation. We don't know how to do that and we have no evidence it's even possible. The argument founders from the start.

But now that I've said that you'll probably disagree and I'll be sucked into discussing simulation theory, and I kind of don't want to do that. So if I peter out of this convo relatively soon, please forgive me.

There is mathematics - and there is the justification/explanation of mathematics.

Applied mathematics is concerned with whether the results are useful. I'm more than fine with this.

It is where pure mathematics tries to establish a foundation of knowledge that I am disgruntled. The effort is laudable - but mathematicians have gotten themselves stuck in a dead end and appear unwilling to extricate themselves.

Axiomatic Mathematics is the show piece of mathematics within which reside logic, formal languages and the majority of mathematical proofs.

But it doesn't work. Axiomatic Mathematics can't define axioms. As deal breakers go - this is one. — Treatid

Ok. You don't like formal math, as you envision it to be. You might be interested to know that there are other approaches to 20th century set theory, such as category theory and homotopy type theory. Some of these areas involve non-traditional intuitionist logic. So you should not think of math foundations as static. Quite a lot of work is being done.

Now I'm not sure if you'e unhappy with axiomatic math, or pure math. As in math for the sake of math, the kind of math that might never be useful. Or it might turn out to be useful in a hundred years or longer.

But you're unhappy with pure math, or math done from axioms. That's ok with me. I am not the Lord High Defender of Math. If you don't like pure math that's ok with me.

But having said that I'm perfectly ok with whatever your feelings are in this matter, let me try to address some of your concerns the best I can.

There is an argument that a flawed system is better than no system. "We know axiomatic mathematics is flawed - but it is better than nothing". — Treatid

Better than nothing for what? You know, if you ask a thousand pure mathematicians what axiom system they're using, or if they can state the ZFC axioms, they'd look at you funny. They don't study axioms. They study the math of quantum field theory, or exotic topological spaces, or deep properties of the natural numbers. They're never thinking about foundations. They have no opinions on foundations and they wouldn't even understand the question. It doesn't come up.

Just ask @jgill, who has had a career as a professional mathematician without having much contact with the foundational side of things.

It's like living in a house. How often do you climb underneath the house to play around with the foundation? Most people just hire specialists for that.

So nobody is making any compromises with anything or using a flawed system. They're just doing math.

Except that axiomatic mathematics without axioms isn't merely flawed - it doesn't exist. The axiom bit is not negotiable. You can define axioms or you can't.

As it stands, axiomatic mathematics strives to find the essence of meaning by stripping away extraneous fluff like relationships.

In fact, meaning resides entirely in those relationships. — Treatid

Aha. I can answer that.

It's like the game of chess. It has formal rules. Within the game there are moves and positions that are legal; and moves and positions that are not legal, according to the rules. The rules are more or less arbitrary. None of it "means" anything; but people themselves invest the game with varying levels of meaning, from the occasional player to the tournament grandmaster. People devote their lives to the game, yet the game has no intrinsic meaning at all.

If it helps, you can think of math that way. It's a formal game. It means nothing. Some people enjoy it. Some make it their life's work.

If some physicist, or architect, or bank teller, comes along and has some use for math; all the better. It makes no difference to the pure mathematicians; except insofar as it motivates their universities to employ them to teach some low-level math skills to the physicists and bank tellers; and then leave them alone to do their obscure, pure research.

So what's wrong with that?

All progress in modern thought is emphatically despite axiomatic mathematics. The presumption of objective truth has been a catastrophic mistake in modern thought. — Treatid

Of all the intellectual disciplines, math is the least concerned with objective truth; and makes no claims to it whatsoever. A mathematician will tell you that proposition P implies proposition Q within some particular axiomatic system; but they never claim it means anything about the real world.

You should take up your complaint with the physicists and bank tellers. They're the ones trying to apply all of this fictitious math.

There is nothing to be lost by discarding axiomatic mathematics. — Treatid

You want to make all those math professors go out and get real jobs? That's cruel.

But what do you mean? There would be nothing to be lost by throwing out music, or mountain climbing, or chess, or sports. None of those are necessary to life, they just make life worth living. Entertainments. Fields of study.

People study the 15th century British kings and queens. They study the great wars. They read literature or pulp novels. Why on earth should't those who are so inclined, study abstract math?

And besides -- once in a while, a previously useless area of math becomes useful. Mathematicians invented non-Euclidean geometry in the 1840's. It was regarded as a curiosity. Then in 1915 Einstein found that it was just the thing for him to express his new theory of relativity.

So math is often about reality, but in the future. And if you ban all the pure math, you'll lose all those tools that might be needed.

As it happens, we can describe relationships. The thing that axiomatic mathematics is trying to dispose of is exactly where knowledge, understanding, meaning and... everything is. — Treatid

If you like the math of relationships, you should chec out category theory. It's the "abstract theory of arrows." You have a bunch of things and a bunch of arrows between pairs of things. Relationships if you like. You can express quite a lot of math in that framework.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory

Mathematics' insistence that the path to truth is in defining inherent properties is holding back human progress. — Treatid

You are just making that up. It's your own straw man. There are no mathematicians asserting any such thing. Mostly they're just trying to crank out the next paper to justify their latest grant; and teaching calculus to the budding physicists and engineers.

Where are you getting such ideas that mathematicians are insisting on any such thing?

To be fair - mathematics is merely making explicit general societal assumptions. By making implicit assumptions explicit, mathematics makes it much easier to understand what our assumptions are and consider them critically. — Treatid

Math doesn't make any assumptions about society. Are you thinking about quantitative sociology perhaps? Or epidemiology, where we apply statistical methods to see how diseases spread

Mathematicians don't do the things you think they do.

If I may be so bold as to tell you: All of this is entirely in your head. Your ideas do not refer to anything real about mathematics. You are tilting at windmills of your own imagination.

I do think that the idea of an objective universe is a dead end and mathematicians should have examined their failures more critically. And we still need the rigour and pedantry of the mathematical process. — Treatid

By the time I got to the end of this I did not think you had an argument or thesis at all. Speculations regarding the nature of the universe belong to the philosophers and sometimes the cosmologists and quantum physicists.

Definitely not mathematicians. When mathematicians study quantum field theory, they do the math. They don't do the metaphysics. And if they do, at that moment they are acting as philosophers and not mathematicians.

You have your basic facts all wrong.

I started on this caper two years ago. I've found that there is some fun and instruction to be found, provided one understands how the game is played and doesn't take it too seriously. But every so often, one finds a more constructive engagement. It doesn't necessarily last forever. So it is important to recognize when one can go no further. — Ludwig V

I did no understand what you are referring to. I just meant the political threads over at the Lounge.

OK. There are many environments in which I don't make that point. However, I don't think that one can simply let anger rip. My main reason is pragmatic. It so easily feeds on itself and becomes destructive. It is important to be sure that one has the right target. But the worst effect is that it can so easily provoke a response in kind and a spiral of violence. — Ludwig V

I have been following this, it's really blowing up. Starmer is cracking down hard and calling them right wingers, but they're mostly working class folk whose live are being impacted by immigration promoted by the government, despite the will of the people. And the British cops stand down in the face of Muslim protests. There's a photo of Starmer kneeling for George Floyd. The hypocrisy.

They're calling him Tw-Tier Kier. And a lot of people are upset. Three little girls got stabbed and the stabber happened to be a first-generation Brit, and it's sparked a lot of pent-up anger. The government has been unresponsive on the issue of immigration.

I'm hearing talk of a "civil war" in Britain, but I can't tell if this is overblown or not.

That's the reason that Governments and similar authorities get so exercised about it. They need to stay in control, and not just because they are taking sides. (Though there is an element of that, of course.) — Ludwig V

It's the taking sides that's blatant here. Starmer took a knee for the American BLM/Antifa riots, and his police stand down in the face of violent Muslim extremists; then call out the dogs, running courts 24/7 to arrest and convict and imprison anyone who expresses a word of dissent.

I see Starmer blowing this tremendously. The partisan application of justice is a step down a very slippery slope for a nation. We're seeing a lot of it in the US as well.

Good question. It is true that it not wise to ask it in many environments. It does have some traction, though it is more complicated than it seems. (This is a different issue, though it is tangled up in the Southport business,) — Ludwig V

I'm all for ethnic diversity. You know what changes? It's like the first big wave of American immigration from Europe in the early 1900's. They all assimilated. I think what went wrong was people not wanting to assimilate. It's not clear if you can run a nation like that. We're all finding out.

How would you feel if the UK banned immigration from the USA because there are white supremacists there? Over-reaction, I think. One has to try and weed them out. Same for Muslim fundamentalists. In the UK, there is a lot going on to try to do that - most of it secret, so it is hard to know. — Ludwig V

The Muslims have a bad track record. The religion and state are intertwined. They are fundamentally incompatible with western thought. Many integrate very successfully. I'm for human movement. Governments should set and enforce their own laws, not have open borders like the US and western Europe.

We don't even know if the stabber is Muslim. That case is just a flash point for a lot of other issues that have been going on a long time.

Here's a couple of politically incorrect thoughts of my own.
1. I would not be happy to live in Cairo or Dubai. I've been there, though not lived there. So I would not be happy if those social and religious norms were imported to the UK. Same for many other countries. There is a fear that a substantial minority arriving in the UK will introduce ideas and practices that I don't like. I expect people coming to live here to assimilate.
But there are also ideas and practices in the UK that I don't like. So it's a question of balance - accommodating new ideas and practices and assimilating to what already exists here. It's not a black-and-white question. (Actually new ideas and practices are often harmless or even beneficial. Moreover, societies do better if they are willing to change and adapt.) — Ludwig V

Some say that the open-mindedness and acceptance of the West is exactly why they will be conquered by the East. I'm not wise enough to know. But it's a possibility. You see the liberals in cities voting in soft-on-crime prosecutors, then being overwhelmed by the crime they voted for. Islam does no seek to coexist. It seeks to conquer. I believe this is just how it is. Am I wrong?

2. Then there's the question of economic impact. There is an opinion, here, at least, that immigration drives wages down by increasing the supply of labour. No-one wants to end up with third world conditions in their own country (though they're quite happy to take the benefit of cheap imports). Economists insist that's not the case. I don't know the truth of it, the claim that it makes no difference seems implausible to me. There's also an argument that the UK benefits because immigrants also contribute to the economy. Which is true, so far as it goes. — Ludwig V

Cheap labor is always good for business. Cheap labor that can't complain about exploitation, lack of safety, and being cheated, because they are illegal, is even better! There are many powerful interests perfectly happy with the corrupt and immoral system we have now.

But at some point, when you have imported the Third World into your formerly First World country ... how do you think that's going to work out for you?

You have to set some limits, you have to have some laws that you are willing to enforce, you have to try to reduce the corruption and brutality and evil in the system.

I'm for serious immigration reform in the US, whatever that may look like.

I don't know the answer, but I'm inclined to think that, again, it's a question of balance. It may seem feeble, so I should emphasize that I'm very happy to rigorously exclude people who are going to deliberately spread disinformation and provoke violence, for the same reason that when UK citizens do those things, they should be repressed. — Ludwig V

Who exactly are the people who "deliberately spread disinformation and provoke violence?" How do you know who they are? Does Keir Starmer tell you? He kneeled for BLM/Antifa. But didn't BLM/Antifa also deliberately spread disinformation and provoke violence? Twenty people died. There were two billion dollars in property damage. George Floyd was a violent career criminal who died of a fentanyl overdose. That doesn't make the cop officer of the year. But if all you know is the mainstream account, it's all a lie. The cop was following department protocol. His knee was on Floyd's upper back. Floyd did not die from strangulation, he died of an overdose. The police department threw Chauvin, the cop, under the bus and let him take the fall. Then the liberals unleashed their shock troops on the country.

And Two-tier Keir kneeled.

I'm questioning your claim that he "still has" many supporters. The public support of Biden got progressively weaker. And even that support was of the "well it's better to not create chaos" kind. I don't see how you can be confident that this indicates a large amount of internal support. — Echarmion

Seems like a trivial thing. If you search around you can find Democrats discussing whether this was the best process they could have done. Of course everyone has gotten into line. The Democrats have indeed shown tremendous party discipline. They turned on a dime and all got marching in the new direction. So when you say support, of course they're all on board the Kam train in public. It was a brilliant political operation, the Kam switcheroo. Biden's gone, Kam's coronated, the media are swooning, the past is being digitally retconned in a manner that Orwell can only envy.

So the Dems pulled it off.

But surely you can't actually believe that the millions of people who did support Biden to the end, aren't personally disappointed that things didn't go their way. You can't seriously tell me that you don't understand this point. That if you support the guy who ends up losing, you line up behind whoever the party chooses. But still, you support your guy and maybe dislike the extreme hardball politics that have been played on them.

Some of them might even be resentful. It's only human nature.

You seem to be denying all of that, and saying that overnight what was in their hearts changed in lockstep with what's on their Kamala signs. I hope you'll clarify this point.

But you did. You're just dismissing the evidence as insufficient. What further evidence do you require? A personal meeting with Biden? — Echarmion

Saying I'm not paying the ransom is a way of drawing attention to his obvious near-death condition, in a slightly humorous way. Not payin' the ransom. I suppose humor, if there was any at all, does not translate over this medium. No matter, I enjoyed it even if you didnt. I don't literally think Biden's dead. I do think he is in terribly bad shape, and that we are being lied to.

It's unusual, and suspicious, when a political leader disappears from public view for days at a time, then posts this fishy letter, then disappears for more days at a time, then gets wheeled out to mumble and look like a standing corpse for a few minutes, as he did the other night.

It reminds me of nothing so much as Chernenko and those other end-time Soviets, guys who were alive in strict biological terms only, very little actual life left in them. They'd sit in the big chair, or be propped up in it, till they died, and the next near-corpse was put in charge.

Will you assert to me that you have not seen this, that I am lying, that I am the victim of Republican propaganda? That when you saw Biden at the hostage presser, you thought to yourself, "That guy looks fit as a fiddle, probably beat me at chess while running the world." Is that your view? Or do you see the same far gone man I do?

Will you grant me the right to call out the massive swindle being played by the Biden administration and the Democratic party: to pretend that the president is fit to do his job; when everyone in the entire world knows he's not.

I have the right to call that out. I am calling that out. And if my saying "I wouldn't pay the ransom," doesn't strike you as a light-hearted reference to the entire issue ... well, I guess not everyone appreciates my fine sense of humor.

But still. You have to say that, partisanship aside, this is a very dangerous state of affairs, with war breaking out in the Middle East. Who is in charge of the country? Who is commander in chief of the military?

So yeah. I ain't payin' the ransom.

Don't try to gaslight me. You used that word and it was the wrong word to use. I point that out and you keep using it, I point it out again and then I'm the one hung up on the word. No mate, you were simply wrong and your interpretation of the whole situation along with the pundits you like to quote is wrong and dumb for the reasons I've stated. — Benkei

I absolutely understand that you believe, deeply and powerfully and to the ends of the earth, that I am wrong.

I acknowledge your right to feel this way. I'm very pluralistic about ideas, and favor free expression.

I reiterate my use of the word coup. A lot of online commentators are talking about it. It's an interesting touchpoint of political conversation. It's not a religious war. I could even argue that it wasn't a coup. It's such a small thing. I have no idea why this is important to you.

I respectfully exit this interesting conversation. Thank you for the chat.

But to change the subject:

Hey man aren't you watching this wild election? Kamala just screwed up her vp pick. She's been tacking to the center and now Walz pulls her back to the left, ties her to the Antifa/BLM riots that she supported.

That's what I find interesting. Joe's coup, or non-coup -- you haven't actually told me what word you prefer. Someone suggested that it was all Biden's idea. That is false to the point of hilarity. Biden hasn't had an idea past licking his ice cream and smelling prepubescent girls in years.

But either way, Biden's exit from the race (but not from the presidency) is yesterday's news. Although he is still allegedly the president, as war is breaking out in the Middle East. But never mind all that.

My meta-point is that I am wondering if anyone here likes to talk politics! Not just argue semantics or yell partisan talking points at each other. This is the craziest election I've ever seen.

I saw some "far-right" protests in the UK today and their "anti-fascists" responders, and it was like here in the US: the "far-right" protesters were 97% white males, and the "anti-fascists" a mix from all the rest, with white females included. — Eros1982

The definition of a "far right" protest is anger at the stabbing death of three little girls as young as 6. Apparently if you're against stabbing little girls, you're a right winger. So says Keir Starmer, new PM of the UK.

Yes, I take your point. Really, I do. I don't know how to open up a discussion about this without seeming to trigger the righteous anger, not only of victims, but of many decent citizens as well. — Ludwig V

Nobody is reading this.

I'm sure you know about the riots in England over the subject of immigration, relative to that awful killing of three little girls.

I happened to see a picture the other day of Keir Starmer taking the knee during the George Floyd protests. So when liberals are burning down the country, he supports them. And when people get angry that thee children were slaughtered, he comes out four square against the protesters. Never mind the stabbers.

To be fair, the stabber in this case is born in Wales to immigrant parents. But that only makes it worse in some people's eyes. Why let in the foreigners in the first place? Without endorsing that sentiment you can see why people are upset; and threatening to jail the protesters seems to miss the point.

As far as I can see, Starmer is living down to my worst fears about him.

There are issues that need to be recognized, and I hope that you will be able to see them. I do not mean to deny righteous anger, which is expressed in the desire for revenge and to exclude the offender from one's society. — Ludwig V

If you don't deny the righteous anger, Keir Starmer might not be pleased! You are NOT ALLOWED to be angry at the fatal stabbing of three little girls at a Taylor Swift dance class. If you are angry at the stabber, you are a right winger. This is the official policy of your government as far as I can tell.

First, there is the familiar problem of the cycle of revenge - the blood feud, continuing a cycle of violence which can even be inherited for generations. It is the result of what is often forgotten, that what we think of as punishment may not be "accepted" by the criminal, who then gets angry and seeks revenge in turn. — Ludwig V

So why allow people into the country who may harbor ancient ethnic or religious grudges? I'm not arguing that but it's an argument put forth by the protesters. And frankly it's not a bad question.

Second, there is the issue of proportionate revenge. The traditional "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an early attempt to limit the revenge response, which can easily go way beyond what is reasonable. — Ludwig V

Yes well these things do tend to escalate.

Third, handling the revenge response is not the only issue when a crime is committed. There is the question of prevention and the question of what happens after revenge is exacted. This is where the issues arise. But let's pause there and see how far we agree thus far.

Or perhaps I should start another thread? — Ludwig V

Three little girls are stabbed and Starmer wants to put the protesters in jail.

I suppose this should go in the Lounge, at least someone would see it. Doesn't matter. Seems to do me the same amount of good to write it whether anyone reads it or not.

Test. Political discussion so often turns into Punch and Judy. There are several reasons for that. But it is often not helpful but actually harmful.

Real discussion is not possible unless one is willing to endanger oneself, by allowing one's own position (and self-esteem) to be on the table. That applies to all philosophy and possibly even more widely. — Ludwig V

I try doing it over there but to no avail. May have to let it all go.

OK. I don't feel entirely comfortable about private threads. It's just that I've picked up references and deduced that some people take their discussions to private threads to avoid intrusive or annoying comments, which you can get on public threads. — Ludwig V

Evidently nobody can see this anyway. It's weird that the moderators did that without notifying anyone.

I found this thread in "All discussions". But it says the last post was 24 days ago. It's way down on page 2. But when I look at your last post in the thread, it says you posted it 11 hours ago. Whatever the reason, pushing it down the list means that fewer people are likely to visit it. — Ludwig V

Too bad. I can't buy an intelligent conversation in the political threads. It's all partisan nonsense.

I think my problem with this is that it implies that Biden had power or control taken away from him. — Echarmion

But of course he did. You might as well argue the sun rises in the west.

Which in this context (since he's still the President) could only mean his power within the party. — Echarmion

Which is exactly why I used the phrases "palace coup" and "intra-party coup." Making your point for you.

But you are hung up on the word coup. If I call it a coup and you prefer to call it a not-a-coup, I'm fine with that. It's unimportant in the scheme of things. As I told @Benkei, I'm happy to talk about the latest developments in this unprecedented election as we live through this very dangerous moment in history. You can call it a coup or not. I'll keep calling it a coup.

But to me it looks more like Biden's power within his party had been on a downward trajectory for several months, which probably is why he did the early debate in the first place. Which then just rapidly accelerated the collapse of his constituency within the party. — Echarmion

No doubt. But they covered it up in the hopes of swindling the American people. I fervently hope the people will hold them accountable and punish them for it at the ballot box. But it won't happen.

Is there evidence for this? — Echarmion

Yes. Fourteen million voters. Many Biden supporters were reported even in the MSM right to the end. Clyburn and many blacks in fact. I am not sure why you're questioning widely reported facts.

What's the argument here? That Biden is dead? Held hostage in some secret facility? They replaced him with a body double? — Echarmion

All I'm sayin' is I'm not payin' the ransom till I see proof of life.

Did you see him at the hostage press conference? Man has one foot in the grave. And Kamala tossed out word salad and she doesn't even have the excuse of being senile.

Are we really in ancient aliens territory here? — Echarmion

I can't read you the news.

And what would the democratic move have looked like? — Echarmion

Having a competitive 2024 primary so that BIden would have been exposed, and a strong, popular candidate, nominated by democratic means, would have been chosen.

The Dems pulled off their swaparoo. But don't call it democracy. It's anything but. It was a coup -- pardon the word -- by the party insiders.

If that's the argument, then neither are republicans after all the undemocratic shit they pulled since at least Obama's presidency. — Echarmion

Trump was nominated in a spirited and competitive primary. You're just flailing with the rest of it. "But he's ORANGE HITLER, whatabout that??"

That all you've got? Many commentators, not just me, are remarking on the Democrats' highly undemocratic manner of swapping in a new candidate with no popular electoral support whatsoever. Then having the MSM whitewash and scrub her actual record. Then having her avoid press conferences and interviews in the hopes of running another 2020-style basement campaign.

Liberals should be ashamed of supporting this charade.

What power of authority did Biden have as the presumptive nominee at the exclusion of everybody else? None. He had no power as presumptive nominee especially if at the convention, entirely in line with democratic party rules, his nomination could be taken. The appeal to his primary votes are irrelevant as party rules are also what they voted for. In fact, within their vote is included the possibility the nominee cancels their candidacy, drops dead, becomes ill, mad, is assinated or removed in accordance with party rules. — Benkei

You are focussed on this one word, which really is not important in the scheme of things. Many interesting things are going on in this election and perhaps we can talk about them some time.

[/quote]
The only reason so many people like you are making such a huge issue about it is myopic politics. This is simply not a big deal and anybody who keeps insisting on it make a living out of having dumb opinions.[/quote]

Coup, coup, coup, coup, coup!

I have no objection to the public space. But it seems that this is no longer really a public space. — Ludwig V

So have the mods actually hidden this thread? Without saying anything?

Still, I'd rather move our chat back to here. I think of the private messages as more short-term communications.

Yes, it's helping me in the same way. It's rare to find people who are willing to emerge from their bunkers and actually discuss things. If it has to be in private, so be it. — Ludwig V

Yes I think the politics threads are a loss anyway.

It's not a coup which you keep using because you insist something bad or illegal happened. — Benkei

I didn't say it was necessarily bad. Clearly it's been a big win for the Democratic party. Every coup is bad for the coup-ee and good for the coup-er. Julius Caesar had a bad day, but the fifty Roman senators who conspired against him were no doubt pleased with their handiwork.

I already conceded that nothing illegal happened.

You are locked in to the word. I'll leave you to it.

It didn't. It doesn't matter how many votes he got as a nominee, he wasn't confirmed as the nominee. He stepped down or would've been removed at the convention in accordance with party rule. His presumptive nomination didn't confer any powers either. For a coup both rules need to be broken and power shifted. Neither happened. — Benkei

I'm getting dizzy just watching you spin.

Power shifted like Mario Andretti at the Indy 500. Biden had and still has many supporters among the Democrats. They got shafted along with his fourteen million primary voters. They've had to go along with the coup now that it's a done deal; but they are not necessarily happy about it.

Finally, I didn't appeal to it being democratic but that it would've been a breach of trust by the Democratic Party to let a doorknob run for the presidency. — Benkei

Then why did they promote someone whose door knobitude was already evident in 2019? That's how long this breach of trust, this massive fraud on the American people, has been going on. And they only did something about it because their little fraud blew up in their faces. Else it would still be going on.

You are impute virtue to the Democrats in this corrupt charade? You don't even believe what you're writing. It's all partisan spin.

Learn to read. — Benkei

You were blathering about democracy a couple of posts back. I do read what you write. Perhaps you should.

They make shit up.

Their confabulation makes them useless as an authority. One has to check that what they claim is actually the case.

But since so many posters hereabouts seem to do much the same thing, what the hell. — Banno

:100:

Second: Mathematicians have a long career of coming across inconsistencies and hurriedly changing the rules so that this particular inconsistency no longer counts. — Treatid

Not hurriedly, sometimes it takes centuries.

As a historically contingent activity of humans, math evolves. We extend our concepts to incorporate new situations and paradigms. Negative numbers, complex numbers, transfinite numbers. Set theory, category theory, homotopy type theory.

This is a natural process. You seem to take a pejorative view of mathematical evolution.

I think Axiomatic Mathematics is wholly mistaken. — Treatid

Drat that Euclid, and Ernst Zermelo too.

But if we consider the question in the context of the hyperreal number line - that is, the real number line augmented by adding infinite values at each end, namely Aleph-null and h, the goalposts move. — alan1000

Alan1000, did you get your money's worth from this thread?

.999... = 1 is a theorem of the hyperreals. It must be so, since both the standard reals and the hyperreals are models of the same first-order axioms, therefore they must satisfy the same first-order theorems. This is a simplified statement of a technical fact in model theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_principle

Aleph-null is not a hyperreal, by the way. You can add symbolic points at plus and minus infinity to the standard real line to get the extended real numbers, but their only use is to make some notation simpler, such as infinite limits and limits at infinity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line

The worst is they lied and covered for Biden’s condition for years. So not only did they nullify the primaries and deny the votes of tens of millions of people with their palace coup, they did so only because they couldn’t keep up the charade any longer. — NOS4A2

I yearn for the American people to punish the Democratic party for the fraud they've perpetrated on us these past four years. It's not going to happen.

Votes and elections and so-called democratic institutions mean very little to them in principle. It’s probably why they dropped the “threat to democracy” schtick and went with calling their opponents “weird”. But remember all this when they avail you of the sanctity of elections. — NOS4A2

They're hardly in a position to talk about democracy! And of course the weird line is stupid, but if they repeat it often enough it might stick with some voters. Politics is a dirty business and the Dems are united with new found enthusiasm and hope. Solving their Biden problem has energized them incredibly. Trump and Vance are back on their heels. They better smarten up soon or it's going to be president Kamala.

This — Benkei

"This" meaning the post I wrote? Or the Newsweek article I quoted? Unclear whether I need to defend what I think, or what Newsweek thinks. Suffice to say many observers saw Biden get shoved aside by an intra-party coup, or a "palace coup," as some described it. Of course not a violent or government-changing coup. So a soft coup. I can live with that. The word coup seems to bother you, I don't know why. You saw the same escalating pressure on Biden that I did. You saw that he was dug in right up to the Saturday before the Sunday he dropped out. You saw that his announcement was posted to X, was accompanied by no public statement or even a photograph, and bore a signature arguably not Biden's.

You saw him disappear for five days. You saw his 11 minute hostage video, full of platitudes about democracy and the good of the country. And since then we've barely seen him at all. Like I say, if that's all we get in the way of proof of life, I ain't payin' the ransom.

You can spin this all you want as "statesman Joe" being a great patriot. That's the public face of a nasty back room business. Anyone with eyes and a knowledge of history and politics knows that.

is as usual written by people who barely understand what a democracy is and what a political party is. — Benkei

Democracy has many meanings. Democracy as in the vote of the people, or an abstract word casually applied to our political system. But we are not a direct democracy, we are a representative democracy. Our system is designed as a Constitutional republic, a Federal system of (in principle) autonomous states with rights and powers that sometimes supersede those of the Federal government.

Of course you know all this. You are playing fast and loose with the word democracy as if it's a talisman against anyone who holds a different opinion.

Biden was the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party not the "democratically elected presidential nominee". — Benkei

He won fourteen million primary votes. He won over 3800 delegates, to his collective opponents' 43 or so. He had twice the number of delegates needed to win the nomination.

Kamala Harris, by contrast, got zero delegates when she was forced, by lack of popularity, out of the 2020 primaries before the elections even began. She did not run in the 2024 primaries, which were rigged for Biden, only for the Dems to shove him aside when they could no longer hide his cognitive troubles.

It's not only Republicans and fallen liberals like myself who see the irony of the Democrats bleating about "democracy," when they so profoundly fail to exemplify it. It's like the line in the film Patton, where George C. Scott as Patton says, "We defend democracy here, we don't practice it." But he was talking about the Army. The Democratic party does not do democracy. They swindled their voters in 2016, as even Biden pointed out recently; saying that he could have beaten Trump, and that Hillary, whom the party insiders elevated against the will of the voters, couldn't. And didn't.

They swindled their voters again in 2020 with the Clyburn deal, elevating Biden over several more popular liberals.

Here's Barrons. Harris Skipped the Primaries. Was It Undemocratic?.

It's an opinion piece. I don't claim they're right or wrong. Only that prominent observers see what I see, and ask the same questions. I have no investment in these links, they just popped up near the top when I put in my keywords about democracy and the coronation of Kamala.

Here's a legal site with a provocative title on-topic to our conversation:

Confused Appeals to Democracy, the Surprisingly Strong Harris Candidacy, and a Fair Assessment of Biden

Confused appeals to democracy. Exactly what you just did. Kamala's ascent was anything but democratic. It's you who "barely understands what a democracy is ..." if you think there was anything democratic about the Biden/Kamala swapout. Not to mention the ascension of Biden in 2020 with his basement campaign and three and a half years of gaslighting the country about his deteriorating (and for the record, tragic) cognitive health.

The Party is not a democracy and has its own process for nominating the nominee and had every option available to it to not nominate Biden at the upcoming convention. Biden could either leave on his own, or get booted during the convention. In fact, it would be a breach of trust towards Democratic voters to allow an incompetent, senile grey-tufted old fogey to run as the nominee all but ensuring Democratic values would not be pursued for 4 years due to losing the presidency. — Benkei

Haha. I admire your pluck in pressing a point that I personally know to be absurd.

But tell me, why do you bother to insist on the point? The Dems won. Everyone thought they had an insoluble Biden problem on their hands. They moved Biden out and the party and the mainstream media fell into line. Saint Kamala it is.

And Trump, I'm the first one to admit, has been stumbling lately. That "Kamala's not black" line was a freaking disaster. The man is his own worst enemy. Likewise Vance, he's also a disaster. It's a highly gendered election and Vance is very nasty towards women. Trump and Vance are busy repelling the centrist voters they need to attract. It's as if they didn't get the memo that the primaries are over and that the general election is about winning the center.

So Benkei, your side won this round. Kamala's ascendent and Trump is struggling to regain his footing.

We don't know how long this will last, and how exogenous events (Israel-Iran war, anyone?) will affect the race.

But in the past two weeks the Dems are kicking the GOP's butt. You should be happy. Give it a rest. You don't like the word coup, so be it. You think Biden was a statesman who willingly stepped aside, I say he all but got a shiv in the back; and for all we know, he got one for real.

So be happy, allow me to call a coup a coup. It won't do you any good to say it wasn't, because it was. Bloodless coup, palace coup, intra-party coup, soft coup. But a coup, regardless.

If you disagree, that's ok. Be happy, you won the last two weeks of the news cycle.

By the way, when's your gal Kam going to hold a press conferene or sit for an interview? 11 days and counting. She does scripted appearances with Megan Thee Stallion. You go girl.

We have been pushing the boundaries for a long time. I'm finding the thread via the list of "mentions". I think they are trying to persuade us to move to private discussion or stop. I'll send you my response to this post in that way. If you really want to stop, just tell me. But I think we've just opened up another layer of discussion. — Ludwig V

Ok I see. Well I'll respond to the PM when I get a chance. We're having an interesting discussion, but I prefer for such discussions to be in the public space. I am on a bit of a mission, which is to slowly and painfully try to get some checkbox liberals and TDS sufferers to, if not see things my way, to at least agree that I have a rational position.

Of course it's a lost cause. In the political threads if you express a thought contrary to their doctrine, they just call you names. It's quite frustrating.

On the other hand, our convo is helping me to at least articulate some of my thoughts. Especially about J6. J6 is an article of faith for the True Believers. That's why I reacted as I did.

On the private thread you referred to the rise of Hitler. But I did say that I see J6 as a Reichstag fire for our time. It's the Democrats making up an insurrection to get their rabid followers to hate the likes of me, their former ally who has dared to think an independent thought.

So I am really primarily motivated to write on this forum for the benefit of my liberal tormentors, the ones who call me names and say I get my ideas from Sean Hannity. It's too stupid to bear. But these people must wake up, for the good of the nation. I might as well do my part, since I was a checkbox liberal myself till 2016. I'd been wavering for a long time ... it's an interesting story, how I came to be a fallen liberal.

So anyway ... the answer is that we should probably wrap it up here ... and I don't know what we should do over there. You're open-minded, you're not the person who needs to hear what I have to say.

I'll sit with this for now.

OK. I didn't grasp the significance of J6 until later. I'm sorry I upset you. It wasn't in any way intended as baiting, or even provocation. — Ludwig V

It's good. I needed to rationally state my position, not just get upset. It's frustrating because J6 is a massive article of faith on the left. And I used to be on the left. That's what drives me nuts. I just don't know what's gotten into my former fellow leftists. They went insane when Trump got elected. I don't love Trump, I see his many flaws, but he's the only alternative to what's been happening to the left. Perverting the criminal justice system for political gain. If this stands, we are no longer the same country. We meaning the US of course. I suppose our cousins across the pond can only watch in bemusement and horror as the US comes apart at the seams.

Thanks for explaining. It would be absurd for me to argue with you. I don't know anything like enough. It is indeed to be hoped that (more of) the truth, or, maybe a better balanced account, will emerge one day. I can even accept that Trump did not intend to overturn the whole constitution, but it does seem inescapable that he was not prepared to accept the election result until he had tried everything possible to overturn it. Calling it a coup, in the normal sense, is an exaggeration. — Ludwig V

But "he was not prepared to accept the election result until he had tried everything possible to overturn it" is just what Al Gore did against Bush in 2000. Hillary paid for the Steele dossier and created the Russiagate nightmare that wrecked Trump's presidency. The Intel agencies said Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation, even after they knew it was real. Stacey Abrams still thinks she's governor of Georgia even though she lost by 50,000 votes.

When Dems try to overthrow or deny elections, it's ok with them. When Orange Hitler does it, they weaken his Secret Service protection. Ok that's a strong charge. I think the case can be made.

But, if I may, my perspective is that all politicians will play dirty when push comes to shove and the opportunity arises. There's no point in moralizing about it, that's how the world is. So there's no reason to think that Trump (or his supporters) are an exception. That's not an unreasonable view, is it? — Ludwig V

Perfectly reasonable. In fact my position on electoral cheating is that the GOP needs to learn to do it better. If they got out-cheated in 2020, they shouldn't whine. They should cheat better themselves. As the saying goes: Politics Ain't Beanbag. GOPs better wake up. The Dems may be evil, but the GOPs are hopeless at best, and often complicit.

ps -- I can't find what category this thread is in. It says .999... = 1 but I can't find this on the main page or in the Lounge.

Unfortunately Seymour Hersh has been on a downward trend for 10 years now, with increasingly fanciful takes on events which, unlike his previous work, have not later been corroborated. I would not take his word as gospel these days. — Echarmion

I take your point that Hersh, for all his achievements, has had some misfires over the years. He's certainly no spring chicken. He broke the story of the My Lai massacre in 1969.

I mentioned Hersh to show that there is an alternative narrative in the news to @Wayfarer's claim, stated as fact though it's nothing of the kind, that Biden left of his own free will.

But I don't need Hersh to make my point. Biden was forced out. Wayfarer's claim that "He wasn’t removed at all. He decided not to run," is opinion, not fact. And on its face, it's not even a particularly well-informed opinion. The facts reported by the mainstream outlets like the NYT and WaPo support the forced out narrative.

Following the debate debacle, first the low-level Dems came out against Joe. Then George Clooney. I don't remember voting for George Clooney to be the arbiter of when the duly nominated candidate may be shoved aside. But he looks good on camera and speaks words written by others. Good enough for me.

Then the big dogs, Jeffries and Schumer. And in the end, the REALLY big dogs. Pelosi and Obama. And Joe finally gave in.

If he even did give in. On Saturday he reiterated that he was dug in and staying. Then they announced he had covid. There were unconfirmed reports that he suffered a medical emergency.

Then on Sunday someone posted to X a letter bearing a signature clearly not Biden's, saying he was dropping out of the race. And then a few minutes later another letter endorsing Kamala.

Can we even convince ourselves that he knew he was dropping out? More likely they posted the letters then presented Joe the facts of life as a fait accompli.

Five days then go by with no sighting. Then he shows up for his 11 minute hostage video. And since then, if what little we've seen of Biden is supposed to constitute proof of life, I would not pay the ransom.

The day after the greatest humiliation of his political life, his wife flits off to Paris to lead the US Olympic delegation. She's been all over the news cozying up to hunky athletes and hobnobbing with the Macrons and the other beautiful people.

And we're supposed to sit back and accept all this. The Democrats do, but that's only because they've abandoned their critical thinking in favor of momentary political gain.

I think it's perfectly fair to say Joe was forced out. I don't claim to know what really happened behind the scenes. Only that the evidence that's been reported supports what Josh Hammer, writing in Newsweek, called a "bloodless coup."

The Democratic Party ruling class's bloodless coup of their own democratically elected presidential nominee, who also happens to be the nominal sitting president of the United States, is one of the most astonishing political developments of my lifetime. Joe Biden, though clearly physically and mentally impaired, has sought the presidency for quite literally longer than I have been alive. Biden had been defiant ever since the June 27 presidential debate debacle that he was not going anywhere, despite overwhelming pressure from party elites and sycophantic media lapdogs demanding he do precisely that. He has a Lady Macbeth-like wife who craves power, and he has a felonious son in desperate need of a presidential pardon. — Newsweek

https://www.newsweek.com/bloodless-coup-joe-biden-will-not-work-out-well-democrats-opinion-1930493

Overwhelming pressure from party elites and sycophantic media lapdogs. That's what it means that Joe was forced out. Whether there was a little good-old fashioned extortion at the end, and exactly what that extortion consisted of, seems beside the point.

I did say earlier that Biden's exit was not by "lawful means." I retract that. It was lawful. At least they didn't give him the Julius Caesar treatment on the floor of the Senate. Unless they already have and we just don't know it. Perhaps Wayfarer was only reacting to that over-statement of mine, in which case he's right. But he said, "He wasn’t removed at all. He decided not to run."

Nobody believes that.

And not that it matters, what with a hot war between Israel and Hezbollah about to break out ... but where's the President? Who's minding the store? And why isn't anyone but me worried?

You think Anthony Blinken has a freaking clue? You're more sanguine than I.

I can see you are serious. But I have no idea what you are talking about. — Ludwig V

Right you are. I drank my own Kool-Aid. J6 is an emotional topic for me. Thank you for giving me a chance to gather some of my thoughts. You don't need to agree, but at least this is what's on my mind about J6.

J6 was a Reichstag fire for our times. A psy-op, a mass propaganda event. It was no "insurrection." The protesters weren't even armed. There was no intention to "take over the government" nor could they if they'd wanted to. An emotionally troubled guy in a fur vest and a horned helmet sitting in Nancy Pelosi's chair is not an insurrection. It's just a politicized word to make half the country hate the other half. Poor deluded bastard got three and a half years.

There was a lack of security, caused when Pelosi didn't support Trump in calling out the National Guard. Things got out of hand. People who were violent should be prosecuted and given the same slaps on the wrists the Floyd rioters got. George Floyd, by the way, died of a fentanyl overdose. The medical examiner said that if he'd seen Floyd's body dying peacefully, he'd have no trouble calling it a fentanyl overdose. He had a fatal dose in him.

That doesn't make Derek Chauvin officer of the year. He didn't kill Floyd, but he's in prison for smirking.

The Feds have thrown the book at little old ladies who walked peacefully through the Capitol, invited in by the Capitol police. We've seen the videos. People who didn't even go inside got tracked down and prosecuted.

Meanwhile the Floyd rioters caused two billion dollars in insurance-confirmed damage, so the real number's higher. 20 died. Kamala supported a bail fund for rioters who got out and committed far worse crimes. In New York City a pair of lawyers tossed Molotov cocktails into cop cars and got slaps on the wrist.

As we speak, there are hundreds of J6 protesters still in jail. There are stories that the temperatures in the cells are in the 40s. That's Fahrenheit, that's 4.44 Celsius. People denied access to their medications. The Feds, on behalf of the Democratic party, are running a political Gulag. It's utterly shameful that Democrats and liberals cheer this on.

The Feds had informants and provocateurs in the crowd.

The J6 committee was a complete fraud. They didn't allow the Republicans to choose their own members. Tens of thousands of hours of video remain locked away, never seen. The committee put together a Hollywood production of selected excerpts from the videos. They lied, cheated, and perverted the US criminal justice system. That will have long term repercussions that are not good. Once the rule of law gets perverted to political purposes, a nation does not recover.

So for those reasons and many others, I strongly oppose the Democratic spin on J6. I want the people languishing in jail right now to get the same lenient treatment as the Floyd rioters. I want all the video released to the public. I want members of the committee prosecuted for destroying records. I want the undercover provocateurs exposed. I want the whole sordid, evil propaganda op exposed and the people responsible held accountable.

So, whether you agree with my points or not, this is why I reacted as I did. J6 is a crime perpetrated on the US by the Democratic party. They need to be held accountable. The truth needs to come out.

As a starting place maybe it'd be nice if public libraries had access to academic journals. — Moliere

Ban academic paywalls. That's a cause I can get behind. Especially when it's taxpayer-funded research. But even the so-called privately funded universities take plenty of taxpayer dough. Ban the paywalls.

ps -- I came to the thread late and I see that @wonderer1 and others have made this point.

I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of all of that. I don't know enough. But I don't believe that Trump's hands are clean, either. Even if Trump himself didn't intend to encourage them, which is very hard indeed to believe, his supporters invaded the Capitol on Jan 6 2021. — Ludwig V

Spare me. In 2020 leftist BLM/Antifa mobs killed 20 people and caused $2B with a 'B' in documented insurance claims. All you're doing is throwing out leftist talking points. Videos show that the Capitol police let the protesters in, they were all unarmed, and most of them calmly wandered around, often escorted by the Capital police. Enough with the leftist propaganda. This is not productive.

Maybe so. But not because a single blade on a single tower snapped off. — Ludwig V

It's a metaphor for the whole enterprise.

You J6'd me? Are you kidding?

Well, I'm not keen on any of it. Not least because I'm not anywhere near wealthy enough to avoid the negative economic impacts - and you are right, it will not be the wealthy who bear the brunt of them. On the contrary, they are quite likely to make money out of it. But I don't see any evidence that the whole thing is a scam. True, we're not having much effect yet. But we are nowhere near the level where we might actually slow climate change down. All I see is oil companies defending their profits and nuclear companies returning to profitability by polluting the planet for the next 100,000 years. — Ludwig V

Had enough. J6 was the end. Take it to Lounge where the TDS sufferers hang out. Do you honestly believe the J6 propaganda?

That made me laugh. A lot of those birds taste and smell very strongly of fish. Not surprising. They mostly eat fish and that makes them very unappetizing. They reckon that painting one of the blades black, instead of white, makes them flicker, which is enough to deter them. — Ludwig V

Interesting if true. No more politics please. J6 is like argumentum at Hitlerum. Terminal point of any conversation.

China has invested a great deal of money and years of effort in cornering the market for rare metals. They must be very confident about where we are going in the long run. — Ludwig V

They're also bring coal plants online like nobody's business.

J6. Jeez man that's all you got?

This is not a political thread and actually I've had quite enough of the TDS over on the Lounge. No more please.