We're going to discuss the pros and cons of faster than light travel but first I'd like to reprint the entire argument of Eric Zeuss or whoever concerning his argument against Hillary. This guy is very biased tword Russia and also Shiite Islam and anti Saudi and Sunni Islam. Keep that in mind as "deep background" as you read this thing. This guy is no conservative by any stretch of the imagination. The thing begins with a reader asking him whether he'd vote Democratic regardless of the circumstances, since it would seem the logical thing to do to insure congressional coat tails for other "down ballot' offices, and also to insure liberal supreme court justices being nominated and approved, hopefully with a Democratic senate. Even if we should get a democratic senate we are back to where we were between 2010 and 2014 and that was not a good place. To me the only true salvation is selecting Bernie Sanders to get longer congressional coat tails and bring in the newer young voters and for once the youth could make a difference. We now take up the response of Eric Zeuss to a reader concerning Hillary.
Not so; I’ve never voted Republican in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate, I’ll vote for Trump, because he has no record in public office (and what he says contradicts himself routinely so can’t be believed), whereas she has an extensive record in public office (and she lies almost as much as he does, and so her words also are null), and that record is disgusting:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/hillary-clintons-six-foreign-policy-catastrophes.html
Since I wrote that, I was forced to ask myself whether I would vote for Trump if the only real alternative turns out to be Hillary; and, I concluded that, yes, I would, and that the reason is precisely because I don’t trust either candidate, but that only in the case of Hillary am I certain that she as President would be catastrophic. At least with Trump, I have no way of knowing what his real policies would be.
This isn’t to say that I agree with what either candidate says, or would be saying as President; it’s to assert that only Hillary has an actual track-record regarding public policy — and that it’s catastrophic.
A proven catastrophe is far worse than a merely possible catastrophe; so, if Hillary Clinton turns out to be the Democratic nominee, I shall vote for Donald Trump, and then just hope that the worst things that he had said regarding public policy were lies, and that the best things that he had said regarding public policy reflected his actual beliefs.
Anyone who would say in response to this, “But that’s to believe in the horrible policy-prescriptions from Trump” would be missing the point here: this point is the exact opposite: I don’t believe what either of those candidates say; I know that they’re both pathological liars; but, only one of them has an actual record, and it’s catastrophic. Hillary offers not only her lies but something real (a record that’s highly relevant to the office she’s seeking) — and it’s repulsive. Trump, by contrast, offers no relevant track-record at all on public-policy matters. That’s not a virtue on his part, it’s a lack of the worst possible vice (a vile record of actual policies while in public office), for a potential U.S. President.
Given a choice between a proven psychopath, versus merely a possible (or even a likely) psychopath, I’ll definitely opt for the latter. It’s the only intelligent thing to do. Anything else would be suckerdom.
If you want to see her actual vile record on global warming, click here, and here.
If you want to see her vile record against the public and for the top 0.001%, click here.
If you want to see her exploitation of women and Blacks to win elections, click here.
If you want to see her actual support for the Citizens United decision she condemns, click here.
If you want to see her solid record of backing American invasions, click here.
If you want to see her actual support for mega-rich tax-evaders, click here.
And, as far as Trump’s promises about any of these things, they should be ignored as much as her promises about them should be. Even what he has actually done as a businessman isn’t necessarily an indication of what he’d do about the governmental policy-issue. In fact, Trump’s most blatantly bad promises (such as regarding immigration) are far more likely to be quickly abandoned by him as President, than Hillary’s are if she becomes President, because whereas Hillary’s (such as blocking single-payer health insurance) are supported by the Establishment, Trump’s are opposed by them (which is why even Republican donors have been donating more to Hillary’s campaign than to Trump’s campaign). (What do those Republican mega-donors know that the general public don’t? They know Trump.)
When life offers a choice between bad options, one still has an obligation to make that choice, and to do it intelligently. In the case of voting (or else not voting) for the President of one’s nation, it’s more than merely an intellectual obligation: it’s one’s civic duty. That’s why I, as a person with progressive values, will vote for Trump if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee.
THE EVENT HORIZON - PRO AND CON
If you are one who laments my chucking of the event horizon, I am having second thoughts since yesterday, too. There are two or three huge arguments for keeping the event horizon. First of all we have the Black Hole argument. Not that Black Holes are a part of this universe because they're not - - but that according to the tyranical "addition of velecities" formula came up with around 1900 when we knew a lot less about space and the stars- - it would be impossible for Black Holes to even FORM because black holes are defined as spherical shaped "holes" in the universe- - said "hole" is the area around a mass of matter where objects are accelerated to greater than the speed of light, and are hence eternally trapped. I don't subscribe to the "vacuum cleaner" version of Black Holes. I believe Black Holes disappear entirely from this Universe and now comprise a new universe. I believe it was Thom Hartman who said that they are brand new "big bangs" forming whole new universes. Another part of this argument is that science in large measure now fully believes in "the event horizon", which I have likened to area calling areas with the phone company. Event Horizons overlap kind of like toll free calling areas. Each person has his own separate border of his or her event horizon. The other big argument is the so called "moving space" argument. This states that the Universe as far out as we can see - -if we could see it- - at its "edges" is actually right now expanding at faster than the speed of light. They call it "moving space" which is actually the ether, which is a cocktail of whatever mass free bosons are floating around out there. Also you UFO freaks have physically SEEN objects appear and disappear suddenly with no other explanation. There is another less impressive argument which goes "For the addition of velocities formula to be held intact- - then you'd have a "magic light beam" that could travel at near infinite speed as long as the object receding from our view by their OWN physical measurement- - - was, by the ammount of acceleration necessary under Newtonian physics, has already exceded the speed of light ten times over. The funny thing there is nothing in the theory of special relativity where you can disprove this is happening by normal tactile measurement of having an object in your hands and measuring it. Who is to say that these measurements are "less real" than ours? But this would entail a super light beam being sent back to us so we could see it and it would still be travelint 186,000 miles a second, because the key to the whole theory is that the speed of light is always Measured at this speed- - never varying from it regardless of the circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment