It was rainy and cold for the first
part of Memorial Day weekend so I took the opportunity to rent a few
movies that were recommended to me. Yes, believe it or not we
actually have a video store near where I live. I know, I know, I too
thought they had gone the way of the Dodo, but this one opened up a
couple of years ago and I have enjoyed browsing in the brick and
mortar environment again. Anyway, as you can probably tell, this is
going to be another movie post. Well, it is Saturday night after
all.
I enjoyed all of the movies, but the
one that stands out for me was “Trumbo”. Bryan Cranston plays
Dalton Trumbo, one of the screenwriters who were subpoenaed to testify in 1947
before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). This committee was
looking into those who were members of the Communist party, which
included Dalton Trumbo. What Trumbo and 9 others did was refuse to
testify on the basis that Congress had no right to question anyone's
party affiliation. Trumbo and the others were charged with contempt
of Congress and sent to prison. But perhaps just as bad was the
reaction of Hollywood. The Hollywood Ten were subsequently
blacklisted by the Hollywood studios and weren't allowed to work in
the film industry. At least not openly. But they did eventually
work with the help of various people in the industry. So this is the
story of a group of people who refused to be intimidated, who,
despite what people may have thought of their beliefs, stood up for
something that is integral to what we believe our country to be.
In this election year perhaps we should
try to look more closely at what being an American should mean.
One of my favorite scenes, and whoever uploaded it cut if off. *sigh*
If
you haven't seen the movie, do. You won't be disappointed.
274 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 274 of 274Ok, Lee is stonewallin' to the end, bein' the dishonest sack o' shit that he is. But I ain't planning to verify no more store fronts for Google's ReCAPTCHA, or to hang around now that the page has turned at the 200 comment mark.
So I'll lay it out for "the audience".
When you multiply y by (x - y) you get xy - y². That is beyond dispute. It does not in any way depend on the numerical values of x and y. It's true for all values, positive, negative, zero, rational, real, even imaginary.
When you multiply two values together to get a product, the two values are factors of the product. That's the definition of factors. It's true in arithmetic and it's true in algebra.
So, y(x - y) = xy - y² means that y and (x - y) are factors of xy - y².
That's also true for all possible values of x and y, positive, negative, zero, etc.
One may ask whether that's really true in our example if y is zero, or if x = y, in which case (x - y) is zero. Yes it is. In either of those cases, the product is zero. And every number (including zero) is a factor of zero, so it still works.
Now, algebra does not depend on which letters we use as variables. So we can say exactly the same things for:
b(a - b) = ab - b²
The terms on the left are factors of the product on the right. It doesn't matter what the values of a and b are. It doesn't matter if we know them, or don't know them. That's all irrelevant. It is still the correct factorisation... or rather a correct factorisation, since there is no one uniquely correct one.
QED. And Lee is still a stupid lyin' sack o' shit.
Yeah, that's what I said it said. "It says that b = 0 (‘real root’)…"
↑↑↑ Long complicated way of saying that admittedly, a must equal b or else the equation is false from the very beginning, obviously flawed, whole thing falls down before it ever gets started, but that it's nevertheless irrelevant that a equals b.
Anybody believes that shit raise your hands; I been askin’ for a vote on this one already--and I'm still ready.
Politico.com has a list of eleven (11) so-called ‘battleground’ states. These are swing states that conceivably might go either Republican or Democrat in any given presidential election. (Most states are solidly favoring one party or the other.) There's eleven swing states they acknowledge (some other media claim its as low as seven). Clinton is ahead in seven of the eleven; and they're the big ones. Politico.com
"…but that it's nevertheless irrelevant that a equals b."
Actually, Petes' argument goes a step beyond that. By his argument it's only briefly irrelevant that a equals b. It's relevant until one gets to step 5, otherwise one would never get to step 5. But, at that point he would have it become suddenly irrelevant, otherwise one would recognize ab - b² as a binomial square, invoking the ‘special factoring’ rules, but it becomes relevant again immediately after he factors that line wrong, when he wants to explain that (a - b) = 0 and so there was a division by zero hidden in there.
So, according to Petes' argument it's only very briefly and conveniently irrelevant.
Ya'll can believe that one if ya want.
A hundred new posts in one day!?!?! We haven't seen that since the heydays of Zeyads old blog.
Still, this mathematical bickering is not something I feel an urge to get involved in.
"And, for the benefit of Marcus and Lynnette; take note that..."
Can't speak for Lynnette but I just scroll past this current algebra "debate". My knowings of algebra are not nil, not close to nil actually, but I must admit I am rusty and was never really that interested nor proficient in advanced algebra. And while I could probably read up on this matter and form an opinion on the case at hand it might take some study on my own part and it would take a level of interest that I just do not have. So, I'll stay out of it, completely and permanently.
"So, I'll stay out of it, completely and permanently."
Makes sense to me. I was surprised Lynnette admitted to following it.
Lee: "Democrat in any given presidential election. (Most states are solidly favoring one party or the other.) There's eleven swing states they acknowledge (some other media claim its as low as seven). Clinton is ahead in seven of the eleven; and they're the big ones."
Interesting read. But I have started to question those polls seriously as of late. Trump especially doesn't seem to come out as the polls predicted. He has had a tendency to beat the polls. If those polls were reliable it would almost be a done deal, and I don't think it is.
Same as in the Brexit case. One poll was 55-45 against Brexit and a few weeks later it was 55-45 for Brexit. The same poll. It can't really be that big a shift in such short a time period in peoples minds but must rather be bad polling.
On that matter I myself think Brexit is just about 50/50 now with the trajectory currently favouring the "leave" side (regardless of what Pete says).
See there Petes; ya exposed yourself as a compulsive liar for no good reason whatsoever.
And in the US generals my best guess (and mind you, it's a guess) Clinton has a lead primarilly because she appeals to a wider set of voters not because she's very well liked. I still give her the better chance. Maybe 55-45 or so.
But Trump has the trajectory going for him. I don't see him losing voters to Clinton right now because all the things he could do to turn away voters he's done already. Those who have leaned towards Trump will find no reason to change their minds.
My best guess is the contest stands amongst the undecided. And also a big thing will be wether the Sanders supporters will vote at all and which way they'll vote (I'd guess Clinton takes home the vast majority of 'em in the end but not all).
Still, a new terror attack or some unforeseen scandal or even some ill-thought statement could tip the scales at ths point.
Myself: I am distraught. I really, really don't like Hillary and I can't see Trump as the "leader of the free world". So it's already a dissapointment to me.
"One poll was 55-45 against Brexit and a few weeks later it was
55-45 for Brexit."
I don't find such a shift all that remarkable on a single issue poll (probably be more remarkable if it were a party/election type of question they were polling on).
But, I do think Trump's a done deal; he's already seen his high point, and it's all downhill from here. The Republican base has been working up its hatred for Hillary for a good ten years now, so Satan himself would probably pull a good 40% against Hillary, maybe only 30% with Gary Johnson in the running on the Libertarian Party ticket. I expect The Donald to do a little better in the end than Satan would have, probably in the high 30% range, and maybe Johnson gets 10-12% in the end. Hillary'll be high 40% range, almost but not quite 50%. She'll whip The Donald by better than 10 points, but less than 15.
I'm curious though, what's right-leaning Swede's problem with Hillary? (Not that I'm defending Hillary; I've never been particularly fond of her.)
They're gonna be eager for a scapegoat; need to guard against that.
I have read where she has told authorities that she tried to convince her husband not to go through with the attack. If true she is admitting to foreknowledge of the crime. They also appear to have video or witnesses that put her with her husband in various places when he was apparently planning the attack. I don't know the situation of her marriage, if it was abusive, such as his first wife implied about their marriage. That could have played a role in her decision making, but it may not be enough, legally speaking, to help in any case brought against her.
I was surprised Lynnette admitted to following it.
I admitted to skimming it. I am in the same boat as Marcus in that I haven't delved into Algebra since high school, so it is only a fuzzy memory.
But I will not interrupt the apparently enjoyable argument you and Petes are indulging in.
I had thought about doing a new post in memory of the attack in Orlando, but I had just put up a post on the day it happened, which I felt is still important in its way, so I will give it a little time.
I must admit to being intensely curious about the vote in Britain that is coming up. I think it just as important, in its way, as is the presidential election in November.
[Marcus]: "I am rusty and was never really that interested nor proficient in advanced algebra."
However, this isn't advanced algebra. This is the most basic kiddie algebra. I can't speak for the US education system, but Wikipedia says they start "pre-algebra" in seventh grade, being about age 12. I can't speak for modern Ireland either, but I was definitely doing algebra well before 12 years old. We have a "junior certificate" exam at about 14 -- Lee's grasp of algebra would definitely have him fail it miserably. But he does share one thing with modern youth -- he can't bear being told he's crap at anything. :) :) :)
"Lee's grasp of algebra would definitely have him fail it miserably."
Actually I was fairly good at math in school, and I have a good enough memory that I recalled right off that there was a special rule for square and cube equations (something that you seem to have missed entirely; don't know if you just forgot or if they never bothered to teach that in Ireland; my guess is you'da been one of those kids who copied off of my paper.)
I was fairly generous ‘bout lettin’ the other kids copy off my math papers.
[Chump]: "You ready to take that vote now, or you gonna keep playin’ with the bot?"
Sure. Only thing is, both Marcus and Lynnette admit to a lack of knowledge / interest. You won't accept the answer given by a piece of software written by a Princeton maths genius. So, I decided yer worst nightmare would be for me to rustle up some actual real people for y'all. Here ya go:
What are the factors of (ab - b^2) ? Is it necessary to know the values of a and b, and if not, why not.
Just tellin' ya so that ya can't claim I snuck off and got the answers I wanted before lettin' ya know. There are currently no answers. If we get the answer you gave, I'm gonna issue y'all a grovellin' apology. If we don't get the answer you gave ... well, let's not pretend yore gonna apologise. Yore gonna keep obfuscatin' and lyin' through yer ass if Albert Einstein hisself was to answer the question.
Anyway, just lettin' ya know in advance that yore gonna be shown up to be dumber 'n' a box of rocks. I am confident enough of that to let y'all know before it happens. Ciao loser.
I notice that you concealed from your ‘actual real people’ that a = b, a condition specified in the original example. That could not have been accidental. We'll have to see if any of the responders is sufficiently aware to think to ask the question.
Tell ya what… Why don't you get real brave and specify that a = b ≠ 0, and we can dispense with waiting to see if any of the responders are sufficiently clever to think to ask the question?
"I notice that you concealed from your ‘actual real people’ that a = b, a condition specified in the original example."
Think of "the audience" and try not to parade yer stupidity too much. Unless you have lost the ability to read, you will see that I covered that in the question. If it is not necessary to know the values of a and b, then their values are irrelevant to the factorisation.
Tip for ya: don't confuse yerself with yer own lies about me claimin' the values were irrelevant to anything other than the factorisation. I never claimed that. But their relevance to the factorisation is covered in my question.
And with that said, a little email alert has just told me the answers are startin' to come in. Let's check them out, shall we? :-)
LOL. Answer number one is identical to what I've been sayin' all along. Vote 1 for Petes. :-)
"Think of "the audience" and try not to parade yer stupidity too much.
Unless you have lost the ability to read, you will see that I covered that
in the question."
I saw that you avoided that in the question. Asking if it is ‘necessary to know the values’ does not inform them that we, in fact, do know the values, within limits and that they are a = b ≠ 0. It leaves the question open whether any of them will think to ask the right question--you're obviously hoping they do not. And you're certainly not going to agree to inform up front. But, they might surprise ya, one of them might ask the right question anyway--could happen. I gotta wonder if you have a plan for that.
"Asking if it is ‘necessary to know the values’ does not inform them that we, in fact, do know the values"
Well spotted, chump. If they answer that "yes, it is necessary to know the values" then we can supply them. Obviously, if they answer that it is not necessary, then the values are irrelevant. Equally obviously, given that none of the answers are going your way so far, you're gonna argue the point, no matter how hideously stupid it makes ya look. Ya got no other option at this point, so the total abandonment of logic will be yer obvious route. Actually, I don't think I've actually ever seen a box of rocks quite as dumb as y'all.
Of course, y'all could still choose to answer my much earlier question, and multiply out the factors given. But ya won't do that. 'Cos that makes it obvious that the values of a and b don't matter.
"Obviously, if they answer that it is not necessary, then the values
are irrelevant."
It merely means that they would have assumed, as most people would assume, that a and b had different values, i.e that a ≠ b. You're relying on getting away with concealing that part. And, you may get away with it--they don't you well enough to be suspicious of you.
"It merely means that they would have assumed, as most people would assume, that a and b had different values"
Ok, ignore the friendly warnin'. Parade y'all's stupidity as much as y'all wish :-)
Or y'all could read the actual answers, where it's clear they make no such assumption.
Ciao, loser.
Seein' as one of the answers covers it, I wonder have y'all ever noticed that yore factorisation, the one you came up with ain't actually a polynomial, let alone an irreducible one. :-)
"Seein' as one of the answers covers it…"
I saw that, I found it curious that one of those could mistake "b" for a polynomial. Find it more curious that you'd be so quick to embrace that error. I'd think that just about anybody would get that part right, but there was an error on that, big and bold and right there in front of us.
Well, I got things to do in the real world. I'll give it awhile and we'll see if anybody picks up on the possibility that you just asked them to factor zero.
Or, in other words, be back later…
I'll give it awhile and we'll see if anybody picks up on the possibility that you just asked them to factor zero.
They've already dealt with that possibility, chump. You lose.
"I found it curious that one of those could mistake "b" for a polynomial. "
b is a polynomial of degree one, also called a linear polynomial. You lose again, chump.
Maybe the guy who thought "b" was a polynomial… It's a stretch, but you could interpret his answer that way. I'm not sure he meant that though, and it's a stretch anyway.
Try again:
Merriam-Webster
Definition of polynomial :
a mathematical expression of one or more algebraic terms each of
which consists of a constant multiplied by one or more variables raised
to a nonnegative integral power…"
" It's a stretch, but you could interpret his answer that way."
ROFL. What a loser! :-)
"a mathematical expression of one or more algebraic terms each of which consists of a constant multiplied by one or more variables raised to a nonnegative integral power…"
b matches that definition perfectly, chump.
(And of course, yore factorisation doesn't).
You lose :-)
And is "b" supposedly the constant or the variable?
Coulda swore I heard chump askin' for free maths lessons :-)
Just pointin’ out a problem for ya. I strongly suspect that you didn't originally understand what the ‘linear’ part of ‘linear polynomial’ implies; probably still don't.
But, you'll probably think to look it up now.
Yore suspicions are none of my concern, chump.
And yet you remain concerned.
Latest answer just in explicitly considers the possibility of a = b (not that any of the previous ones ignored it, as Chumpy would like to pretend).Seems like Chumpy's last hopes of an excuse for stonewallin' have crumbled' :-)
Quick summary so far:
So, to summarise:
On my side:
* 10,000 Wikipedia visitors
* 300 respondents to one Quora question
* 1 Princeton professor
* 1 expensive software package
* 5 (and counting) Quora respondents to a second question
On chump's side:
/tumbleweed
In favour of my (correct) interpretation:
* same factorisation used by Wikipedia
* factorisation verified by multiplying out
* result agrees with a commercial maths package
* result is an irreducible polynomial as required
In favour of chump's crazy interpretation:
* Wikipedia article might've been written by terrorists who booby trapped the solution
* Quora.com might be a hangout for crack addicted mathematicians
* Algebra might be an alien plot designed to confuse us
LOL.
LOL. Somebody (not me) downvoted Chump's sneaky attempt to muddy the waters over on Quora.com.
:-)
"* 5 (and counting) Quora respondents to a second question"
I count 4 responses, and, given that one of them explicitly postulates that ‘E.g. if a > b > 0’, I think we can safely assume that none of them has actually contemplated the possibility that a = b ≠ 0.
"Latest answer just in explicitly considers the possibility of a = b…
Are you entirely delusional? How does ‘a > b’ distort itself into ‘a = b’ in your mind?
"LOL. Somebody (not me) downvoted Chump's sneaky attempt to muddy
the waters over on Quora.com"
So you are delusional then. They took out a snarky comment by one Michael Stevenson who accused you of trying to get them to do your homework for you (I still have a screenshot of it), and I quote:
"Think for yourself. It’s one thing to ask the internet, another to
ask people here without even adding what is troubling you about a homework question."
My comment, which was actually in your defense, although I regret that part now, stating that it was not a homework assignment was appended to his comment as a sub-comment and moved with it, it was not attached to your question. When somebody took out his snark, my rebuttal went with it.
You are obviously still fantasizing that all things are going your way--NOBODY THERE HAS YET CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT A = B ≠ 0. IT AIN'T HAPPENED. And yet, you somehow have seen it anyway--full on visions to go with your delusional nature now?
If you're brave enough, why don't you just go ahead and tell them? a = b ≠ 0; that's part of the premis. Answer is, obviously, you're not brave enough; you prefer your delusions, just like the crazies over at the state mental hospital; you prefer your delusions.
Typos: Need more coffee.
Ya know, one of the things more coffee brings with it (along with a night's sleep) is a new perspective.
Given that: Neither Lynnette nor Marcus is following this…
There is no good reason for me to be following you around your various delusions and fantasies. It just makes you think your delusions and fantasies are somehow worthy of serious consideration, and they are most certainly not. If neither Lynnette nor Marcus is following you, then there's no reason for me to worry ‘bout the crazier crap that goes on inside your head.
So, if you wanted to go ahead and ask those guys straight out, I'm willing to hang around and watch for the answer. Here's the question to put to them:
"Given that:
1. a = b
2. a² = ab
3. a² - b² = ab - b²
Is it either appropriate or permissible to factor (ab - b²) as b(a - b)?
Let me know when you're ready. If you're never ready, not a problem for me.
[Chump]: "My comment ... was appended to his comment as a sub-comment and moved with it, it was not attached to your question. When somebody took out his snark, my rebuttal went with it."
Nope. Ya might've convinced yerself that's what ya did, but ya didn't. There are answers and there are comments. Y'all screwed up and added a new answer, and not a comment, in spite of what ya might have thought. If ya want to see an example of a comment on an answer y'all can see my comment attached to yore answer. Yore answer got independently downvoted, independent of any other one. But I see ya upvoted my comment, probably hopin' it would elevate yore answer to which it was attached ;-)
[Chump]: "If you're brave enough, why don't you just go ahead and tell them? a = b ≠ 0"
Simple: 'cos it would be a screamin' embarrassment, jes' like y'all are. I asked them if the values mattered. The clear answer was NO. Why would I then go and tell them what the values are. THEY DON'T MATTER. THEY ALREADY ANSWERED THAT.
The other reason is that there has never been the slightest chance that I was wrong. You act as if there was some kind of "furious Googlin' competition" between us, to see who could get to the right answer first. Only reason I ever engaged in the whole debate was to show up yore intransigence. There was never any possibility y'all were correct, only the possibility ya could stonewall, lie, and obfuscate to make yer incorrectness less obvious. Now we've reached the point where no fair observer could think ya were ever anything but delusional. I ain't gonna go askin' patently stupid questions (like whether it matters if a = b) in front of other grown adults. They'd think I was toyin' with some ten year old kid for fun. And ya know how us Catholics are sensitive about that sort of accusation ;-)
It's over chump.
add closing quote mark after that last question mark just above.
"…You act as if there was some kind of "furious Googlin' competition"
between us…"
That would assume I've been googling on this issue, which I haven't.
"Nope. Ya might've convinced yerself that's what ya did, but ya didn't.
There are answers and there are comments. Y'all screwed up and
added a new answer, and not a comment…"
You got that wrong; I watched it move up and down the list appended to Michael Stevenson's snark (which has vanished). It did not go on the top level list (which was being sorted by timestamp--that's how I noticed I's attached to Stevenson's comment and moved with it. And, I saw your comment--it seems to have vanished too--but I didn't vote on it--it came to me in an e-mail, by the time I got back to the web page it had disappeared--and it's still disappeared it seems. I did click on the comment form, trying to find it, but it wasn't there (that may have triggered whatever you thought was a "upvote" -- I'm not familiar with that part of their page and have no firm opinion on how those things work or don't work).
Let me try one more time to get through to you:
"NOBODY THERE HAS YET CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT A = B ≠ 0.
IT AIN'T HAPPENED. And yet, you somehow have seen it anyway…"
You are suffering delusions; you are seeing things that are not there! Do you understand?
And, just by the way, unless your second comment disappeared when mine went away along with Stevenson's snark, then somebody pulled your second comment independently. Perhaps they don't value your input as much as you think, reckon?
"So, if you wanted to go ahead and ask those guys straight out, I'm willing to hang around and watch for the answer."
LOL. Ever hopeful. Ya still plain don't get it. Those steps y'all listed are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the factorisation question. It's perfectly valid to ask what the factors of an algebraic expression are, regardless of any knowledge of values. If that weren't true, algebra would be pointless -- it would just reduce to arithmetic. Even though I KNOW that to be the case, as anything else would be completely ridiculous, I deigned to ask on yore behalf if the values matter. That got answered. THEY DON'T. There is no point in yer continued whinin' ... "but, but, but ya didn't tell them that a = b". IT DOESN'T MATTER. They said that. I know that. Everyone knows that but you. It is the ENTIRE POINT of algebra, to be able to manipulate unknowns. Yer continued lack of understanding on this point underscores yer complete cluelessness even about the nature of the issue.
And now chump, I got better things to be doin' than rubbin' yer nose on it. Gives me no great pleasure to see ya flounder thus. Ciao for now.
"LOL. Ever hopeful. Ya still plain don't get it."
You seem to be stuck on that one suggestion. We're way past that now. And this might be important enough to repeat. ‘Cause it don't seem to be sinkin’ in with you.
"NOBODY THERE HAS YET CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT
A = B ≠ 0. IT AIN'T HAPPENED. And yet, you somehow have
seen it anyway…"
You are suffering delusions; you are seeing things that are not there! Do you understand?
Okay, I don't think he can deal with that just now. It may be better not to press him on that subject. If he reacts badly, he might react in the real world, and there's no way to help him or get him help if he needs it.
And, kinda final thing here: Those guys' math site is a confusing place. The comment of mine that Petes was taking such delight in being pulled, it's back up, although Petes comment did not come back with it, nor has the ‘Stevenson snark’ comment made it back. I don't get what they're doin’ there, but I do still figure that if Petes is never ready to put the question to them plainly then I got no problem with him never being ready… So, it goes…
And, turning away from Petes' fantasies and delusions, our old friend George Friedman, he of Stratfor fame, has some suggestions on the rest of us disabusing ourselves of our fantasies regarding the war with Da’esh (the current leader of the radical Islam jihadi movement).
New CBS poll nationally, Clinton leads Trump by 6 points with Gary Johnson getting 11% of the vote and 9% no-answer/undecided.
And, we are far enough into the race (even though the conventions have not been held) that RCP is publishing polling averages. I consider this one of the better resources for keeping abreast of where the race is going (along with Nate Silver of the 538 website)
Currently Clinton vs Trump and the average is Clinton 44/Trump 38.4
Currently Clinton vs Trump vs Johnson and the averages are Clinton 40.4/Trump 35.9/Johnson 8.9
Lee: "I'm curious though, what's right-leaning Swede's problem with Hillary? (Not that I'm defending Hillary; I've never been particularly fond of her.)"
Basically because there wasn't a war she didn't like and I fear she will start new ones given her previous "intervention" stances. Probably escalate tensions with Russia, from the safety of Washington while europeans get stuck in the middle. Probably escalate in the ME as well and let Europe handle the inevitable refugee crisis. All that and I have the impression she's not a nice nor trustworthy person to begin with.
"Probably escalate tensions with Russia, from the safety of Washington
while europeans get stuck in the middle."
I had no intention of defending Hillary, but, that one, well… I'm kinda of the opinion that, given Putin's domestic incentives to produce foreign policy ‘triumphs’, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the next President will face escalating tensions with Putin's Russia, and that the Europeans will blame us instead of the Russians when Putin needs to deliver his foreign policy triumphs to his constituencies. Doesn't matter who the next Prez is on that one--Bernie would have the same situation to face, and the same set of very limited options.
Hmmm...looks like Johnson is drawing a little more from Clinton than from Trump. Too bad.
Basically because there wasn't a war she didn't like and I fear she will start new ones given her previous "intervention" stances. Probably escalate tensions with Russia, from the safety of Washington while europeans get stuck in the middle.
I tend to agree with Lee on this one, Marcus. Hillary was the one who came along with that silly reset button thing and tried to reinvent our relationship with Russia after George W. had pulled back. Of course, to be fair to W. that was after Russia invaded Georgia. I think it is Putin's Russia who is intent on putting Europe in the middle.
But we like to lie to ourselves, and that’s the real enemy.
So true, for many things.
"I think it is Putin's Russia who is intent on putting Europe in the middle."
They're competing to see who can put in the new northern pipeline route so's Russia is more easily able to put the screws to the Ukraine. I'd say they plopped themselves down in the middle on purpose.
"…looks like Johnson is drawing a little more from Clinton than from Trump."
That'll probably change, and, if it doesn't; she's got the margin to spare. She'll be 10 points ahead of Trump by November.
It looks like Trump is polling at a 70% negative rating vs Clinton at 56%. It's hard to imagine Trump getting elected when 70% of Americans don't like him.
Clinton may recover somewhat. She's been a favorite target for neigh onto ten years now, and mostly without the ability to fight back. She can fight back now, and that may bring her rating up some from the 56% negative. She's got too long a trail, and it's been too long being ingrained by FoxNews and Radio-Right-Wing, so she'll never have real high trustworthiness numbers, but she might recover some from that 56% unfavorable rating now that she's freed up to shoot back at her detractors. Trump on the other hand cannot avoid being Trump; it's just not in ‘im, and even if it were, he'd lose the right-wing crazies who snagged the Republican nomination for him, so there's no real benefit in him trying too hard to clean up his act. He'll go into November with that 70% unfavorable rating.
Good analysis. I suspect you are right.
It appears that Da’esh fighters have abandoned Fallujah's city center and are congregating on the western margins of the city (preparing to try to flee back toward Da'esh's few remaining stronghold areas to the west perhaps?) Bunches of civilians are getting out of areas that were Da'esh held urban territory just yesterday and the day before, but the Da’esh fighters have moved to the western margins now, and more folks are free to flee.
LOL. No intention of spooling my enjoyment of golf or the Euros to wrangle with Chumpy any further. But it seems we've finally nailed a conclusion. Chumpy does not know what algebra is. His cluelessness really does run that deep. He doesn't get that it allows mathematical manipulation of unknowns. Everything that can validly done with unknowns can, quite obviously and by definition, be done regardless of particular values. Chumpy don't get that. Thousands of Wikipedia visitors and hundreds of Quora respondents do. Apart from his cluelessness, Chumpy's arrogance also runs deep enough that he reckons all those people made deliberate mistakes so as to secretly agree with him. They wrote down the wrong answers without ever saying anything about it so that Chumpy could secretly be correct. Ain't no arguin' with that level of crazy.
"Ain't no arguin' with that level of crazy."
I don't believe I've made an argument that you haven't tried to steal. You even latched onto the ‘Ciao for now’ quip I sometimes use--and now you're borrowing my earlier observation that you're actually nuts.
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But, I think, in your case, it's more like envy.
In any case, it is what it is…
I would point out that choosing to be delusional, and I do expect it's a choice in your case, doesn't really alter the end.
Post a Comment