You preach end days and I’m the one that’s flailing aimlessly in the dark?

Do you trust humans to give you an accurate model of the future? Extreme poverty is in decline, life expectancy has more than doubled since 1900. Is it really time to cower in some bunker?

The idea that someone else is to blame for someone else’s suicide is not without its irony. There is no place in the workplace for bullying and harassment, but then again it was completely within their power to quit and leave those conditions behind them.

The Democrat’s impeachment efforts were so weak that it is laughable. But it was never about “justice” or “democracy” anyways. It was just another layer of finery to adorn their reactionary response to Trumpism, and the failures their efforts have gifted the world and posterity. As we still wait for the second coming of Hitler, the nuclear wars, the fascism and the economic disasters they promised us and the world, now they have given themselves impeachment as the reward for their live-action role playing.

It was only a matter of time before they impeached Trump for word crimes. It was too difficult for them to find actual crimes, so they reduced themselves to scouring his statements for transgressions of speech, and then lying about them to make them seem worse than they are. Whether it was Schiff’s parody, or Escobar’s and Lee’s “misquotation”, they can never seem to get those words right.

For all his faults, his stupidities, his hubris, his bluster, Trump still runs circles around candidates who have been politicians for the better part of a century. Add on top of that the memes and shitposting, he is the anti-politician.

Your argument is like saying vigilantism. should be endorsed and made legal. In other words, you don't care about the means, just the end.

Try that working for government and you'll soon be out of a job my friend. Your so-called idealism might work in the private sector, but when you are a public servant, many things require PC.

Like I say, it's common sense human resource stuff. Work for a big global corporation and you better adhere to their PC. What don't you get about that?

Vigilantism should be made legal? I’ve made nothing close to that argument. In other words, you don’t care to properly represent your opponent’s argument.

They believe he’s the second-coming of Hitler, so it’s not a stretch for them to believe he can divide millions of people like Moses does the Red Sea.

These kinds of totals aren’t unheard of,” Maguire added. “I do think they’re unheard of on the liberal side. I think that’s what’s so striking about this.”

So before pointing out this dark money, let's remember the republicans have been responsible for 70% of dark money in every election cycle since Citizens United.

Whataboutism.

No he can't, if it's not in his employer's dress code job description. Otherwise it's common sense- reasonableness as to the appropriateness.

He can and he did, and landed a spacecraft on the nucleus of a comet while doing so. While you shush him and wag your finger he’s advancing the world forward. That’s why this sort of political correctness is laughable.

I’m open to all climate science. What I’m not open to is the intolerance and bigotry towards sceptics of it.

My point is that he can pick and choose what attire he deems appropriate, and it is neither up to me or you to do it for him. Your frigidity around clothing is direct evidence not of Taylor’s irresponsibility, but of your own opinion, nothing more. And given that he landed a spacecraft on a comet despite the shirt renders your opinion moot.

So, one more try to put this starkly and simply.

The invisible hand is the social pressure that guides individuals through the operation of their self interest. It is not a necessary causative law, because any individual as labourer or as capitalist is free to defy it and starve, but on average, and given the social and psychological status quo, it is inexorable. And this invisible hand at the present stage of development, mandates the annihilation of most of humanity, because they are no longer profitable. This is already happening.

Proposed solutions based on money and ownership (UBI and socialism/communism) inevitably fail because they continue the social (financial) arrangements that produce the invisible hand. Nothing less than a new conception, (or possibly an old conception) of social relations including the property relation, and the nature of social virtue will suffice to

I really like your argument. But perhaps there is a more optimistic component. Given the increasing life expectancy, idleness, and general quality of life that has advanced along with technology, would it not be safe to say that this hidden hand mandates a liberation from toil and struggle more so than our annihilation?

what Part of my “rant” do you need data for? I don’t get it.

I think we can only manipulate people to the extent that they are gullible. In that sense it is wrong to use someone’s gullibility against them because of the bad faith it involves...unless they deserved it.

You invented the hypocrisy and now are wasting your own time trying to call others out on it. Sorry, you need to use your big boy arguments.

Look, I’ve given you enough chances to return back to the topic. Any time you want to do so I’ll be interested in a conversation, but the hostility and harassment is not worth the effort.

That’s false.

What hypocrisy? I have said nothing hypocritical nor paradoxical.

Is that all you got?

I'm waiting for you to reconcile your paradox that you put yourself into... . Let us know when you're brave enough to work yourself out of the political extremist box LOL!

You made things up. In other words you pretended I put myself into a paradox.

I'm saying... simply...

The Republicans and their donors ARE invested.

It's not bizarre unless the above is not being seriously taken into consideration.

Three democrats voted against.

Speaking of investment, DNC dark money is huge right now. The PACs are working overtime for a return on it.

Given your political views and support it’s no wonder you want to deflect from the topic. Your credibility has decreased the impact of your arguments.

Interesting. Trump politically denies climate change. You're a Trumper. Aren't you being a hypocrite?

You appear to be hypocritical in your exaggerated concern over a T-shirt/freedom of expression and political correctness. In other words, on the one hand you're denouncing political correctness in favour of freedom of expression when it suits you, on the other hand you use similar politics to support your likely denial of climate change. How do you square that circle?

You appear to be making this up as you go along. I’m willing to discuss the topic and defend my views if you’re ever interested.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html

So much for your conspiracy theory.

Sorry, I mean to say they claimed quantum supremacy. Whether they actually did has already been disputed.

A lie.

Where was it proven false?

There was this long investigation by a man named Robert Mueller that found no such crime, namely, because no such crime existed in the first place.

And none of this was proven just as Obama it was never proven that some kind of manchurian candidate or pretty much all other ridiculous right wing conspiracies that are concocted to discredit nearly anyone who runs against republicans or is in office.

Also you are completely ignoring the fact that it IS against the law to misuse government money like it is part of your own personal slush fund even if what you think you are doing is the right thing which is why Trump and his lackeys tried so hard not to let anyone find out what they were doing. Anyone with common sense knows that if anyone else than Trump did what he did then they would both lose their job and have to serve some time in jail. Instead all he is getting is a slap on the hand which both him and the republican are bitching and moaning that it is too heavy handed by the democrats.

If the average american government worker so much as gets or gives a nice pen (or a lunch) to a vendor for help for whatever they are liable to being prosecuted to either being bribed or attempted bribery. However if your a politician, lobbyist, or have some other similar position where "campaign contributions" begin ends and bribery begins is a bit of a gray area.

The conspiracy that Trump is a Manchurian candidate, that he colluded with Russia, made it to the highest parts of the government. To the chagrin of many it was proven false. This was literally concocted by the Democrats as their Russian-sourced dirt was used as the impetus for the investigations. There was no such investigation of Obama.

Other administrations misused funds and none of them went to jail as far as I know. Meanwhile Trump is getting impeached. So I’m not so sure your common sense is working in this regard.

I’m more optimistic. I don’t think we should fear falsity because of its relation to truth. The rise in falsity and misinformation coincides with the rise of social media, which has allowed the populace to avoid the traditional gatekeepers of truth. Perhaps this is why there is now a concerted effort on the part of these gatekeepers to punish anyone who deviates. The “post-truth” era is really the post-media era, and all these efforts are really the flailing of a once-powerful 4th estate in its death throes.

Nobody said a word of Google's claim of achieving quantum advantage.

They have not.

We quabble about a word, we argue the emotional strength of expressions, but nobody pays attention to the actual claim.

We are so human. (Except for me. I am not.)

They achieved quantum supremacy. This is worth a discussion in its own right, but not the intended topic of discussion.

Not a lie. General counsel of the OMB released a legal memo explaining why:

“For decades, OMB has routinely used its apportionment authority to prevent funds from being used,” Paoletta wrote, according to the Post.

“Often, in managing appropriations, OMB must briefly pause an agency’s legal ability to spend those funds for a number of reasons, including to ensure that the funds are being spent efficiently, that they are being spent in accordance with statutory directives, or to assess how or whether funds should be used for a particular activity," he reportedly continued.

It’s not because he’s a Democrat, but because his son was being payed vast sums of cash by a corrupt Ukrainian company while his father was the point man in Ukraine.

Hopefully you do understand the difference of a scientist getting attacked either because the scientific study he (or she) has made and/or the conclusions the scientist has made from the study and being attacked because publicly wearing a babe-shirt is offensive to some. There is a difference in the seriousness of the matter. Sticking to the trivial can be counterproductive.

Yes I understand the difference, but I don’t see how it is trivial or how pointing it out is counterproductive. A Nobel laureate being ostracized and losing his fellowship because he told a silly joke seems to me a serious matter. A university president resigning because he said there is differences in male and female brains seems to me a serious matter. A rocket scientist brought to tears over harassment and abuse because of his t-shirt is a serious matter. Science cannot flourish in such a culture.

It's more important when actual scientific research is compromised or altered because of political correctness or political ideology, even if science has to deal with ethical questions. And there's a short distance from scientific ethics to political correctness or political ideology.

Sure but the seriousness of compromised research does not lessen the seriousness of the politically correct bullying of scientists.

How do you figure that? If using (or trying to use) government money to undermine a political rival isn't an impeachable offence then one can excuse nearly any kind of behavior. I imagine if one happen to be a king or if somehow a ruler and the government were the same thing so actions wouldn't be treason but as far as I know that isn't the type of government we have.....at least not yet.

Yeah I don’t get the whole idea that one cannot investigate the corruption of a political rival because it might ruin his political chances. Do you think the possible corruption of Joe Biden should be avoided because it might undermine his campaign?

He abused his power by illegally withholding aid approved by Congress to compel a foreign country to investigate a political rival.

And he obstructed Congress by refusing to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas and by ordering others to refuse to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas (which is a crime, as per 18 U.S. Code § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees).

He temporarily withheld it, which is legal and something they do all the time, and assisting Ukraine in tackling corruption is an obligation of treaty, namely, the Treaty Between
the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

Clinton committed perjury, a crime. Andrew Jackson violated acts and allegedly the constitution. Either way they were acquitted. How has Trump abused his power? He hasn’t.

I meant partisan.

Well, no, none of the articles of impeachment are mentioned in the constitution, and none of what he has done warrants removal, or else every president would need to be impeached. They did claim bribery there for a hot minute because it sounded good with a focus-group, but I suspect after dangling that lure in front of their base for too long, the knew the errors of their case. They could dangle anything and their base will bite. The democrats threw an unfair show trial and now they want fairness. That’s rich. They’re not going to get it nor should they.

Yes. McConnell has said "Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can" and "I'm not an impartial juror."

That's direct evidence that the trial won't be fair.

It’s a political process, not a judicial one. The idea that only Dems can be partisan is absurd.

Right, the inquiry was fair, the senate trial is unfair. Of course the senate trial hasn’t happened yet, and the inquiry was a Democrat show trial.

She wants a fair trial, and McConnell has already made it clear that it won't be a fair trial, given his comments that he isn't impartial and that he will coordinate with the White House.

No, she wants an unfair trial, the same as the inquiry.

Nancy Pelosi may wait awhile before sending the impeachment to the Senate. Which part of the 6th Amendment does she not understand?

Trump is so much an existential threat to national security and “our democracy” that she doesn’t want the trial to proceed at the pace of the inquiry.

In American society, only a small fringe of privileged progressives believe political correctness is a good thing. The vast majority fear and dislike it. So much for common sense.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/

You might not care that a scientist’s name and feats were dragged through the mud for wearing a shirt, but the idea that talking about it dumbs down the discourse is a stretch. We do know that in America today a university president or Nobel Laureate may be publicly chastised and even asked to resign for discussing hypotheses that are deemed politically incorrect. We know that a scientist and his feats will be publicly excoriated if he wears a stupid t-shirt. No, they are no Giordano Bruno, but this is important and not as dumb as you pretend.