-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
Jack Remington
Banned
Jeb posted an op-ed about how he'll roll back the regulatory state:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-ill-slash-the-regulation-tax-1442961807
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-ill-slash-the-regulation-tax-1442961807
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is a process story that trying to be a scandal story.
What is the crime? What is being hidden? How does this disqualify Clinton? They admit nothing has been found wrong (except 4 email with information from satellites!) But still " questions have been raised!"
NYCmetsfan
Banned
. A
God this stupid line annoys me to know end. It's so old!
Glad to see your going to abandon your desire to the rule of 200+ old law called the constitution.
"Think what the U.S. could be and the prosperity we could have if we rolled back the overregulation that keeps us from ranking in the top 10."
For reference, the list is here: http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploretopics/starting-a-business
We could be an economic powerhouse like Georgia, Armenia, or Canada.
The scandal is a non-scandal.
Which is exactly what the media thinks and a narrative they want to portray.
Which is exactly what the media thinks and a narrative they want to portray.
Jack Remington
Banned
If we're really 46th in the world in ease of starting a business, that suggests there may be room to eliminate some red-tape. I wouldn't mind that.
I wish he wouldn't go the idiot route of tying net neutrality into this.
Probably less than 10% of people who are going to read that column even knew what net neutrality was until the Greater Fox media apparatus told them what their opinion of it should be.
I wish he wouldn't go the idiot route of tying net neutrality into this.
Probably less than 10% of people who are going to read that column even knew what net neutrality was until the Greater Fox media apparatus told them what their opinion of it should be.
Trump and his team are fucking on the ball. I give credit where it's due. They are right on time with figuring out the winners and losers of the day/week, and it shows.
This is the second Trump tweet against Rubio in 24 hours. Rubio isn't just on his radar.. he's seeming more and more like target #1.
I hope he wrecks Rubio's rep among primary voters like he did Walker's.
Retromelon
Member
Wording yo
Trump is like a T-Rex. He can only see you if you move in the polls.
Hah! I knew Rubio was a potentially viable candidate; Trump is going to try to bury him as a result. I've aways believed that Rubio was a possibly competitive nominee, and still do, especially if Jeb completely throws it all away (in the primaries).
This is the second Trump tweet against Rubio in 24 hours. Rubio isn't just on his radar.. he's seeming more and more like target #1.
I hope he wrecks Rubio's rep among primary voters like he did Walker's.
Officerrob
Banned
This is the second Trump tweet against Rubio in 24 hours. Rubio isn't just on his radar.. he's seeming more and more like target #1.
I hope he wrecks Rubio's rep among primary voters like he did Walker's.
Trump is flailing all over the place right now. In the last 24 hours he's hit Fiorina, Rubio, almost every Fox News anchor, Club For Growth, etc. Between Fox News, CFG, and Walkers exit speech yesterday, the "destroy Trump" movement is back in full effect. They are basically daring him to go third party.
Also, Trump second tweet is because Rubio hit back at Trump. Trump likes to dish it out, but if anybody gives it back he goes on a twitter rampage.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
Great quote! You made this up just now?
Har. Good one.
Rubio running from his immigration bill.
If anyone can cripple Rubio.. I think Trump can do it.
If I'm wearing his strategy hat, I see the upcoming shutdown conflict as an opportunity to issue a broadside attack against a number of establishment/insider candidates. The base is going to be royally pissed when they find that Planned Parenthood's funding is still intact when this fight is over; the timing is going to be perfect for Trump to use this fight (along with the fight over Boehner's speakership) to pin-down his prominent Congressional candidates. He'll tar them as "lapdogs of the Chamber of Commerce" (or somesuch other epithet), and the base will be more than receptive.
Rubio would be the perfect foil in this instance, especially if the media or Trump baits him into taking a stance on the shutdown.
Meanwhile - quite conveniently - his buddy Cruz sails along unscathed. Hmm.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I called this before the debate was up I think. He's almost a week behind internet fourm posters!
Officerrob
Banned
Trump is ALL over the place:
Jack Remington
Banned
Rubio/Kasich, in whichever order, would frighten me going into the general. Kasich in front with Rubio as the VP would terrify me.
It's going to be really interesting, these next few weeks. And yeah, a while ago, I began to realize Cruz was trying to cozy up to Trump. Maybe he wants to be his running mate if Trump is the nominee? That would certainly be quite the ticket.
Democrats suck at campaigning circa 2014 happened.
Rubio/Kasich would be formidable in the GE
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Cutting into, just enough, those advantages and prevention other defections from the GOP leaning camp.
The GOP only needs to cut into a bit the dems advantage. The old white vote isn't going anywhere.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You're wrong NYCmetsfan. Romney was planning on running to Bush's right on immigration, as was Cruz. Walker flip flopped on immigration specifically to take a hardline position. Would the language be as ugly without Trump? No. But the policies would ultimately be the same. Build a wall, no amnesty, nothing for DREAMers, learn English, etc.
We are so polarized that I can see D's still pull out a win but I admit the contrast would be terrifying. Mitt Romney was from MA and Paul Ryan WI however....................................
and this aside from the extreme Trump stuff said in a less harsh way.
This is literally poetry.
Jack Remington
Banned
Ohio & Florida would both have home-state candidates on the ticket.
Though I'm not hugely confident in Rubio's ability to carry Florida.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Romney went right of Bush who basically was agreeing with Democrats and pro first class citizenship.
Romney was basically "let's keep them here let them work and pay taxes but no benefits" which is exactly bush and rubios original gop proposals that's still far more fair than what trump as forced.
Avon Barksdale
Member
This is the second Trump tweet against Rubio in 24 hours. Rubio isn't just on his radar.. he's seeming more and more like target #1.
I hope he wrecks Rubio's rep among primary voters like he did Walker's.
Trigger fingers turn to Twitter fingers.
Retromelon
Member
Bill is that a world tour or your girls tour 
oooo
oooo Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm not convinced Rubio is well-liked enough in Florida to put the state in firm Republican territory. Carson and Trump did better against Hillary in the last PPP poll.
Anyway the days of Ohio and Florida anointing the president are over. Virginia and Colorado are where the action is.
Anyway the days of Ohio and Florida anointing the president are over. Virginia and Colorado are where the action is.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Now that the story is running thin on actual info I see we've gotten to "anonymous sources state they've recovered some e-mails. We don't know what these e-mails actually are but we assume it's bad and criminal and scandalous."
Wow. That's really well said. Much clearer than anything I could have written.
brainchild
Banned
First, let me just say that I have already addressed PD's argument. It was fallacious, and I have explained why it was fallacious. He constructed a false equivalency by implying that scientists just implicitly trust that eternal nothingness just somehow suddenly brought life into existence. It's utterly ridiculous. The journey towards the existence of life was long and arduous, not sudden, and did not come from pure nothingness.
I now see that you have clarified what you believe to be his underlying point, but I have already addressed this as well, though maybe I should elucidate.
It would seem that your point is that if quantum fluctuations are not necessitated by causation, then neither is God. The truth is that in theory, that could very well be true. However, the difference lies within getting to the point where it would be reasonable to make such a conclusion. You see, this isn't just about two hypothetical situations being theoretically possible. One is based on evidence and the scientific method, the other is based on faith. In order for us to be able to determine which is based on what, we must analyze the contexts for each scenario.
To say that virtual particles have likely always existed is not blind faith, it is a logical conclusion based on empirical evidence that has not been refuted by counter-evidence thus far. There is no evidence to date to suggest that there was ever a time when nothingness did not contain virtual particles. So to explain what gave rise to quantum fluctuations in the first place would be to presume that there was a point in time where nothingness did not have quantum fluctuations. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that that has ever been the case.
There IS, however, evidence to suggest that the universe contains zero energy, that the universe is flat, and that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is real. Basically, all markers that make sense for a universe that could have come from nothing; a nothingness that has not changed in how 'truly' empty it was since before the origin of the universe. Factoring in all of these observations, we can begin to construct scientific theories about the very nature of existence.
There are a few things we can say about the nature of existence. It is not orderly, or with any apparent purpose, and it is a random and unstable change of states that isn't even precipitated by any known force at the fundamental level. The principles we observe about the nature of existence also apply to quantum fluctuations themselves. Meaning that we can clearly see that quantum fluctuations are just what nothingness looks like when we try to observe it, and when we do, we observe that it is the nature of existence. There is no reason to assume that the nature of existence would have ever needed a cause to give rise to the mechanics of quantum fluctuations. In fact, if these fluctuations didn't occur, it would be strange and unnatural, because that would imply that the reality of existence is able to control itself by preventing its state from changing, which would imply an order to the existence, which would imply a sequence to that order, which would require a beginning to that sequence; causation. So in essence, a reality where nothingness never fluctuates would require causation, not the other way around.
Now, when you contrast that with the fact that we cannot obtain empirical evidence of the existence of God in the first place, you understand that you'd have to use a completely different rationale to conclude that an infinitely complex anthropomorphic being of love does not require causation. We cannot look at nature and say, "see, God's energy was here, then disappeared out of existence, and then it popped back into existence, as an empirical demonstration that suggests that what is happening has always happened. To believe that God exists without causation would be to implicitly trust in something you can't even observe. That is blind faith, which is not what scientists are doing when they say that quantum fluctuations do not need causation.
It can be demonstrated that quantum fluctuations are an empirical expression of the fundamental nature of reality, therefore, without need for causation. It cannot be demonstrated that God is an empirical expression of the fundamental nature of reality. If God exists, and is not tangibly part of the observable universe, his existence requires causation, or at the very least, empirical evidence that he's fundamental in nature.
It all boils down to the issue of how scientist reach their conclusions about quantum fluctuations not needing causation vs how believers come to their conclusions about God not needing causation. The situations are not comparable and is a false equivalency, as I have stated before.
The reason this question exists is due to human perception. We like to attribute meaning to things, asking why something is the way that it is. But it is rather presumptuous of us to assume that nature gives a shit about our understanding of its inner machinations. The truth is that some things don't have a reason because they don't need one. It's just the way WE'VE OBSERVED these things to happen.
With God, it's totally different. It's not like we can scrutinize him under the scientific method, so believing that he has always existed is simply an an act of faith. We don't even have proof that he exists in the first place!!
Hopefully that helps.
hydragonwarrior
Member
I still find scary people in the running - if only the world was fair and they sent a straight up unlikeable moron like Santorum or Perry to GE.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
How much would people doubt me if I claimed brainchild as my alt troll account?
Also,
1. Something something essays.
2. Something something separate thread something something not politics.
3. Something something something.
Retromelon
Member
Shutting my mouth on points one and two
Personal taste does not make you a bad person. Why does fallon always raucously lean back and guffaw at every little thing like its the funniest joke he ever heard tho. Its off putting
PoliGAF distilled.
brainchild
Banned
This is getting off topic, but I would never troll. That's incredibly immature and narcissistic. Though I suppose the distinction is meaningless if the thread gets derailed.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Am I bad I like fallon more? I liked Colbert but I feel his new shows feels to big for him alone he needs a sidekick.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked