Delta1212

That's the sort of run-of-the-mill gerrymandering that was done before the VRA was gutted. Things have gotten a bit worse since then.

A finite value divided by zero is not infinity. It is undefined. You need an infinitesimal divisor in order to yield infinity.

Yeah, it's just going to be a case of both sides saying "No, you're lying and using fake science. These are the real studies that show what is really happening." And a televised debate simply doesn't provide the opportunity for the amount of time or depth of explanation that would be required to really allow the audience to distinguish one from the other, so the whole thing becomes he said/she said with numbers as far as the viewers are concerned.

Density is mass/volume. To get infinite density, you need infinite mass and/or infinitesimal volume. So: infinite mass/finite volume infinite mass/infinitely small volume finite mass/infinitely small volume Any of those three situations will give you infinite density.

As dimreepr strongly implied, that is not a theory. That is a hypothesis. They are quite different things.

Here's the thing though: If he doesn't have some kind of veto power, what other influence is there? Abortion is not really something you can compromise on. There isn't a way to negotiate over the details. It either gets done or it doesn't. Don't get me wrong. I understand the sentiment completely. It's something I grappled with for a long time as a male and being able to easily visualize the situation from that perspective. However, how does that sentiment translate into concrete terms? What legal rights for each party give the man fair input into the decision without placing an undue burden on the woman's ability to control what happens to her own body? I mean, I still think that it is a good idea that everyone affected have a serious discussion about such a decision, but I don't see how it can be legally mandated that such a discussion take place. In circumstances where such a discussion is likely to be productive, it probably would have taken place anyway. In those circumstances where it forces such a discussion to take place against the will of one or more participant, it seems like it is liable to do damage more often than it would do anyone any good. From a legal rights perspective, rather than an ethical, moral or even just good manners perspective, I don't see any better way of doing things than giving the full legal right to make that decision to the woman who is pregnant. All of the alternatives I can conceive of seem much worse.

Of course not. Taking medicines made out of plants that look like human body parts enhances the attributes of those body parts. If the part in question is afflicted by a disease, it'll just make you sicker to enhance the diseased part. That's healthiness 101.

It makes quite a few predictions, actually. A prediction is not "telling us something that will happen in the future." Scientific predictions are parameters that we should expect any new evidence to fall within. If you discover new evidence, or run an experiment that generates results, which does not fall within the expected range of values set by the theory, then you either need to modify the theory to account for the new information or abandon it in favor of a theory that better explains all of the available evidence should one present itself. Evolutionary theory guides our expectations about what we should and shouldn't find in the fossil record. What DNA comparisons should be able to tell us about the inter-relatedness of different species. How DNA can be used to trace population changes and migrations back through time. How different structures in different species, both some with similar purposes and some with very different purposes, should have arisen from the same source in an ancestral organism and the been adapted to different circumstances, which directs us to look for common developmental pathways. It guides out thinking on how pathogens develop new symptoms, transmission vectors and immunities to anti-biopics or vaccines. Huge swathes of the healthcare industry and pretty much all of modern biology are predicated on the predictions made by evolutionary theory. The fact that you don't know what those predictions are does not mean they do not exist.

Well, yeah. If you commit to doing something with someone and then back out without consulting them it makes you kind of an asshole, regardless of what that thing is. There are always potential extenuating circumstances tha could make you more or less of an asshole for doing it, but in general, that's the principle. That being said, people mostly have the right to be assholes if they want to be. It is possible to be entirely in favor of someone's right to do something without personally approving of the particular way that person goes about doing it.

It's not just that. He seems to follow very strict Tit for Tat rules in his interpersonal interactions. Say something negative about him, and he attacks you. Say something nice about him, and he's your best friend. And past history doesn't seem to play a significant role in either direction. He reacts to whatever the most recent interaction he had with a person was.

I don't agree with waitforufo very often, but yeah, none of that is going to happen. Yelling at Trump is just going to piss him off and make him attack you. He's not someone who has much of a track record when it comes to contrition. Flattery, complements and suggestions are going to be the only effective tool for getting him to listen to you. Yelling at him is going to do fuck all.

Yeah, this is one thing I don't find especially weird or have a problem with. Especially since we, by definition, only ever see them in public. It's not like they're going to bicker with a camera on them even if they did privately have an argument about something. That would take a special level of dysfunction for a family who is used to being in the public eye.

Ivanka is his actual daughter. In any case, it's not how easy to understand the situations are. It's that there is an attack, and now there is a defense of that attack. All you need is a one-sentence justification of what people would like to believe and you can mostly insulate them from worrying too much about any attempts to contradict it. Mostly because the majority of political issues just aren't that important to most people. Most issues feel fairly removed from any direct personal impact on daily life and a lot of people simply don't have the time or energy to delve any deeper than the surface level of anything that doesn't directly and very obviously have an impact on them.

Yes, they identified a potential attack and are taking this step in order to neutralize it. My contention is that they will likely be successful in doing so because anyone who tries to point out the conflicts of interest from this point on will be lying due to the fact that Trump "legally separated himself from his businesses."

What about this election campaign makes you think a completely transparent attempt to avoid looking like he has conflicts of interest without doing anything to actually negate those conflicts of interest makes you think that is an issue anyone would be swayed by in terms of whether or not to vote for him?

He announced that he is doing something that could be a step he obviously needs to take. However, I think it is is just as likely, if not more so, that he is simply doing what he already said he was going to do, and will be legally signing over control of his business to his children. Which, come on. That'd be George "They can't try a husband and wife for the same crime" Bluth levels of legal maneuvering. Since that's what I'm expecting to actually happen, I'm holding off on the celebrations until I see what it is he is actually signing.

I think it would be less misleading to describe it as 4+1D

This sounds like a test question.

Why do you believe that was a correct statement? Because that's how the world seems to intuitively work? But we have evidence that the way the world works based on our intuition is an emergent result of processes that do not work the way we are used to. You seem to be arguing that there must be another, deeper level that is the same as the surface level behavior. It's a bit like saying that it doesn't make sense the M&M's contain chocolate because they look and feel like hard candies, so there must be a candy center inside the chocolate that is the real M&M.

For the record, I haven't neg'd you. In any case, I was brought up to believe in America as a place of free expression without fear of reprisal from the government. That you could express whatever belief you liked in whatever manner you liked without legal sanction, as long as what you were doing did not pose a direct and immediate risk to the well-being of others. I was taught that "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." And that there be circumstances where "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That is the America I look for in the symbolism of the waving flag. It is not, apparently, the one that you do.

Except it won't give them the right to burn it any longer if you take away their citizenship over that. That's the point. Stripping someone of their citizenship because they burn the flag does more to diminish that flag than the burning of it does.

I just lost all respect for you...

I would consider that a very basic freedom, yes. Why, did you think that I wouldn't? What's the point of rights if you only defend them when they're exercised by people you agree with? You have every right to object to people burning the flag. You don't have the right to take away their citizenship in response, and one of the responsibility of citizenship that you mentioned is resistance to that kind of move by the government.

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/803592091163119616

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944