MigL

AS has been stated many times on this forum by Phi and many others, Conservatives, and Republicans in particular, appeal to people's emotions ( fear, insecurity, etc. ). D Trump certainly did, he appealed to people's dissatisfaction with the government and how it failed to represent/serve/answer to them. A lot of people felt disenfranchised and ignored by the government, and this was, in effect, a protest vote ( my opinion, and boy, are they in for a rude awakening ). Now, after the election, The people who railed against the fearmongering, are themselves reacting emotionally. The have let fear of what D Trump will do control their actions. What do they expect to gain/change with the protests/riots ? Do they want the election annulled, and the chaos and anarchy that will bring ? Do they want the north-eastern seaboard separating along with California and forming their own countries ? Or are they simply venting frustration, with no particular aim, but making things worse ? I also find it ironic that you guys who can tell me the high percentage of times D Trump has lied during the campaign, now, all of a sudden, believe that everything he said is the gospel truth, and he will do everything he promised.

What I find more troubling is the statement " a fetus is not a human being ". Does that mean that until the umbilical cord is cut, we are just dealing with a cancer-like 'growth' which can be simply cut out and discarded ? A lot of people and lawmakers have agonized over deciding when the fetus is accorded human rights. And I realize there will be extreme opinions ( some at conception and others at delivery ), but surely, at some point, the fetus has to be granted human rights. What would be your reaction if ( in a country like China ), as soon as the gender is known, couples abort their female fetuses ( or is it fetii ? ) simply because they prefer male offspring ? Would you say it is their right to do so, as the fetus doesn't have rights or legal standing ?

We have the same issue in Canada with proportional representation ( which does seem like a more fair system, but I'm sure would create new problems ), but it only ever gets brought up when the Liberals lose an election. But that wasn't the main point I was striving to make... Why such a low voter turnout in what is arguably the most important election of the last 50 yrs ? And given the low turnout, why all the anger and angst at the results ?

The fact of the matter is that about 50% of ALL Americans who voted in this election also think and respond that certain way. Do you want to censor their opinions also ?

Getting back to the topic, which is the protests, not the legitimacy of the election. ( if there is a problem with the Electoral College system, why does it only get brought up when Democrats lose ? And why was there no talk of changing it during the last 8 yrs ? It does seem a rather archaic system and maybe change is in order ) Most of the videos I've seen show a lot of younger protesters, a lot of high school age as a matter of fact. Given the fact that historically that is the demographic that is least likely to vote, Why do they feel they have the right to complain about the results ? Instead of blaming our apathy at the results, why not blame the apathy of those who didn't bother to vote and caused this in the first place ? If people were worried about a D Trump win, why such a low voter turnout ( lowest since '96 ) ??? It wasn't important enough for people to get off their butts and go vote, why is it, all of a sudden, important now ???

On the contrary, there are almost yearly amendments and regulatory changes to NAFTA. All involve discussions/negotiations among the members. ( google NAFTA amendments )

Ahhh Americans. They're my neighbors and I love them, but they're not ones to pass up an opportunity to riot every chance they get. But you guys gotta relax, and keep things in perspective. There are things that are way more important than this election. Family, health, your job, etc. all are way higher on the importance list. Life will go on, even with D. Trump as President. And don't forget, in four years you have the opportunity for a do-over

So, what next for Mrs. Clinton ? Now that she's lost her chance for the Presidency, and doesn't need him anymore, will she kick her husband to the curb ? ( personally, I like Bill, more so than Hillary )

So D Trump wants to re-negotiate NAFTA. NAFTA is approx. 25 yrs old. Do you know how many times NAFTA has already been re-negotiated ?

This seems to be off-topic as this thread is about the American President Elect. If the Mods deem this discussion should continue, it should be split off.

Whoah, Ten oz, that was two months ago. We have bigger fish to fry now than Islam. We have the Trump situation, and how both you and I said it could never happen. Try to keep up.

Certainly not equivalence, CharonY. I was under the ( mistaken ) assumption that personal rights can be suspended in a life or death situation of another person. I was just re-certified in CPR/first aid/ defibrillator this past summer, Delta. Instructors now tell you that anything you do is helpful if a person has no heartbeat, even compressions only, as that person only has approx. 4 min. The professionals will NOT be there in time. ( sorry for the off topic jaunt )

Its obvious where I'm going with this. The discussion is all about the frustration with the election results, and how people feel that Waitforufo is 'rubbing salt in their wounds. Shouldn't we be able to get past that and discuss B. Obama's accomplishments and shortcomings with civility, and without having to wait for the frustration and grieving to end ? Whatever happened yesterday, the US is still one of the only countries in the world I'd consider living in. And there's enough checks and balances in the government that half of the outlandish things D. Trump has mentioned, he won't be able to do. The other half, he won't want to do once he takes office in January and reality bites him in the ass ( remember how B Obama was going to close Guantanamo Bay ? How did that turn out ? ) Besides, I don't see why you guys are worried. I'm the one who has to take four people out for lunch and drinks tomorrow because I lost the bets I made against D Trump.

"A thread on the legacy of Obama might be welcomed - but not if, from the get go, the thread is designed to provoke and insult." I don't think that the fact that some people are a little upset or disappointed by the results of a democratically decided President Elect is a valid reason to shut down a thread. Why would it be different if the same thread was opened a year from now ( and not provocative ), other than the fact that some are a little sensitive and raw about the election outcome, and so, its considered 'provocative' currently ? Shouldn't we be able to discuss 'sensitive' issues on this forum, or do we need to account for when someone is in a 'bad mood' ? And as far as I can tell, the only person to hurl an insult is Phi, although he did provide the 'reasoning' behind his assertion. Just providing my opinion, which isn't necessarily worth anything.

My bad. That's what happens when you get your understanding of the law from TV shows like Seinfeld. I always thought Good Samaritan laws enforced assistance. ( and also Depraved Indifference laws from Law and Order ) So its not criminal to watch someone die of a heart attack and not render CPR/first aid ? Their right to life does not supersede your right to go about your business ? Seems, at the very least, immoral.

I'm a firm believer of the rule " your rights stop when they start infringing on the rights of others ". Yet this rule is often broken by laws, because some rights are perceived to be more important or fundamental than others. A lot of countries have Good Samaritan laws that require a person to provide assistance to another person in distress ( see the last episode of Seinfeld ). IE your right to go shopping is temporarily suspended if a person is having a heart attack beside you in the Mall. I can almost 'see' the same reasoning used to suspend a woman's 'non-biological purpose' to guarantee the survival of an infant.

Doesn't seem like too many people on this site are learning anything from this election. Delta1212 seems to get it, but everyone else is simply blaming voters for exercising their right to a vote, or D Trump for being the tool that he is. D. Trump didn't win the election, he simply rode the movement against 'establishment' politicians and the status quo that H. Clinton represents. People in the US, like miners in W Virginia, steel workers in Pennsylvania, auto workers in Detroit, and all the other places that the Government has ignored for the last 20-30 yrs, want a voice and their government back. They are tired of career politicians like H. Clinton making promises and then ignoring them for 8 yrs, of the lies and subsequent denials, of being called 'deplorable' because you have concerns that the 'enlightened' politicians deem too pedestrian. They are tired of urban centers on the east and west coast having the only voice that shapes America. I, myself had thought H Clinton would win. That disenfranchised American voters would bring us to the brink and allow us to look down into the abyss, before drawing back, and electing Clinton. I, and many others, were wrong. They got to the brink and jumped, and we had better concentrate on making as soft a landing as possible: not finding blame. The people wanted to send a message, and Democracy allowed them to do it ( ain't it grand ?!?! ) Its too bad they chose to do it by throwing a loud, boorish, intolerant rock named D Trump through the front window.

We already have the cash based voting incentive, but its actually party specific. Every election, party platforms are geared to offer tax cuts or rebates to specific groups. In Canada, where the PM isn't as tightly controlled by other branches of Government as the President is, they even have a slush fund which they start dispensing prior to an election. Of course, after the election, party platforms quickly change, and the outgoing party is usually blamed for leaving the economy in a worse state than previously thought. Politicians and used car salesmen will say and promise anything to get you to buy their product. I wonder how long it would be before we heard... " B. Obama left the country in such bad shape that we can't really make it great again. We'll have to settle for mediocre. Oh, and those lazy Mexicans won't build the wall as its hard work."

What Strange gave you are properties of QM which 'allow' things to happen. Basically anything that could possibly happen has a probability of happening. No repeatability and no direct link between events. That is not the standard definition of 'cause'.

And why would you think we've been moving in relation to the Big Bang ?

I thought it was an indication/metric of orbital overlap, which is itself, an explanation for some of the 'non-standard' molecular angles. That being my understanding, but I'm no chemist.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, Mike. ( never seem to have enough time for anything these days ) Looked through my resources and the simplest/most readable I could find was a paper by W. H. Kinney of Columbia University. 'Cosmology, Inflation, and the Physics of Nothing' arXiv:astro-ph/0301448v1 22 Jan2003 The section you want is 2.4 The vacuum in Quantum Field Theory. It doesn't go into too much detail for the solution of the harmonic oscillator. the re-interpreting of the raising and lowering operators as creation /annihilation operators, nor with the fact that the integral over all oscillators diverges due to the non-zero ground state, but it does give a basic understanding and should be easy to find.

There is no illegality in the FBI reading the e-mails. It would be stupid, though, as it would render any findings obtained through those readings, inadmissible to any case they may have.

So you're saying its a privilege to live in a democracy rather than under a dictator ? I thought a large number of people had given their lives to ensure that it was a RIGHT, and not a privilege. ( wear a poppy and remember their sacrifices on Nov.11 )

I have no clue what this thread is supposed to be about... Star Wars episode vIII: The American Empire Strikes Back