A weird story that will probably continue to simmer for the remaining months of the 2106 2016 Presidential election: what are Donald J Trump's ties to Russian interests? How can the purported ties be established in fact? Is there any record that can be examined? Would Trump tax returns show something hinky or surprising in this regard?
The biggest headline is that experts named and un-named have found the fingerprints of the Russian state on the Wikileaked DNC emails. That the supposedl
David Seaman has had a fair bit of promotion on Objectivist Living, not that there's anything wrong with that. Here is his latest, from which you can glean a coherent narrative of his work.
Seaman had a recent appearance with the dean of American 'truther' media, Alex Jones, in a short and sweet update on the dread communication platform Twitter.
Truth, Truther, Truthest!
"President Trump and Pat Robertson: The Complete Interview | CBN Founder Pat Robertson sat down with President Donald Trump at the White House for an exclusive, wide-ranging interview on July 12, 2017"
"Have been knows" uses the passive voice and has no subject. Be that as it may, I think the lawsuit's progress is poorly reported by John O'Sullivan. There are a lot of claims made in his article at Principia (which Merlin noted was reproduced elsewhere, though not in mainstream news media). There are a lot of claims made, but some or all may prove not be true. An Objectivist approach ...? Maybe examine the 'sides' ... and maybe examine the herald.
It should be remembered that O'Sullivan i
... Russia, according to a set of figures taken from the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Output stats:
GDP Nominal (billions of $)
GDP PPP (billions of Int. $)
I first saw the headline from a New York magazine story and imagined a cutting-edge Finnish 'Backcountry Rescue Drone' ... but it is more of a showy stunt and a Samsung commercial and elaboration of concept. Oversized drone capable of hauling a snowboarder. Ho hum.
[-- this was originally slated for publishing on November 8th, and dates back to August. The boring laments about those departed to the lake are kind of embarrassing. But hey, it helped clarify my thinking when I wrote it, and invites correction of its assumptions. I add the picture of Lake Wateree in South Carolina to take your eye off my errors --]
Of the several issues on which he differed from Trump or for which he chastised Trump, Pence has fallen into line -- as reported widely to
This is no longer a placeholder. Some 'on the record' wild guesses are already out -- notably our Bob Kolker -- so I too am going to publish a prediction/analysis, knowing full well I might be picking through bird bones on November 9.
I think Donald Trump will lose the election on November 8th. I have some definite reasons why. I thought to post the reasons here, even if I am shown to be gawdawfully wrong later on. How 'off' will my analytic take be? Only time will tell.
[NB -- this was originally an unpublished draft, but was viewable by the Administrator, who rightfully thought it was a normal entry in the blog. I publish it now since it contains some interesting and challenging feedback on my opinions. The draft was taken from the Rigging thread.]
Overkill. Gotcha. Gazillions!
Maybe, as you say. Maybe not.
I hope that reports and suspicions of irregularities and vulnerabilities are taken seriously by any American concerned about the integri
A well-timed leak of the Trump remarks as prepared has sloshed its way into the hoopla machinery. One such transcript is here, at Politico.
Over at Reason, the reasonable Matt Welch points out a few disquieting tones of authoritarianism.
I have been watching Trump speeches since the primaries, since I ate crow about Bush. I will watch and re-watch this one tonight, as it is probably the most important speech by the candidate to date, and will probably garner the biggest TV audience
It's a deal.
Browser not supported. Visit &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a data-cke-saved-href=&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;http://www.270towin.com/&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; href=&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;http://www.270towin.com/&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp;amp;
At this point in the American presidential election cycle, Trump supporters should be excited -- not despite the challenges, but because of the challenges. Their candidate is an assertive, even aggressive personality, a fighter. What does a fighter relish if not challenging, high risk/high reward situations?
Imagine you have been summoned to Trump Tower. Can you make 'contact' and a persuasive argument that some of these challenges are central, some peripheral, some not even challenges a
Trump is working from a self-limited palette.
I guess you people hear lots of different things. "Why did he do it?" is psychologizing? It sounds like your people are incurious. If there are others just like this killer, laying in wait ...
This is weird. Your 'holier-than-thou liberal secularists here' -- do they have names? Is it possible to lift up their awful comments and show them relevant? No?
Hardly relevant, IMO. And not recently. Sente
I can't imagine what this guy is feeling, but I am stirred emotionally a bit. I can almost describe the feeling I had when I first saw the image. I had been looking on Google Image for similar images to one which was used as illustration of the Romantic/Sublime arty-farty heyday. Google Images returns, most often, a similar colour-range (the illustration was blue) and quite often a contextual/conceptual similitude: the Google Image results for 'search for this image' gave "like" mountains, pea
Brant, some areas of biology are more complicated than flip one-liners ... I think you do well understand that there is variation in genitals. I have explained this before at length here. Please review the 'spectrum' of real-world and recurring cases of babies born with indeterminate external genitalia. It is relevant and not all that complicated in principle: the X and the Y have jobs to do as chromosomes. In a normally developing fetus, their job is done to the norm. It is the not norm I thi