Did you know that we pay $19.41 billion per month on interest for the National Debt?
Trump's "big beautiful bill" will add $3 to 4 trillion to the national debt.
His first term added $7.8 Trillion.
I don't know about you, but I'm old enough to remember when a trillion dollars was a lot of money.
She is beautiful.
If that ever happens, whose fault is it? You've got to consider that the economy was going bad long time ago, since Biden's term.
No, we don't have to consider that. The fact is, in his first term Trump presided over this country's worst economic collapse since the 1930s great depression, and Biden presided over the greatest economic recovery since the 1930s great depression. Now, Trump is going to crush the US Economy again.
Of course, Trump and his followers are going to blame someone they hate, the MAGA movement isn't about economics, it's all about hate, but these are the same people who blame California forest fires on Jewish space lasers. I suppose that plays well with Trumps beloved "poorly educated" masses, but the rest of us can just ignore that inane nonsense.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." -- Niels Bohr
This is mistakenly attributed to Bohr by numerous sources, including yours, and articles in newspapers and academic journals, due to popularity as a Danish proverb. It's not original to Bohr.
Btw, my wife is Danish, and is familiar with the proverb, so she laughed at me when I offered the quote as from Niels Bohr.
It's a Danish proverb, and since Neils Bohr was Danish, and since fellow physicists claim he said it, it's reasonable to assume he actually said it and therefore, it is a valid quote.
"my wife is Danish" - fauxlaw
That is a valid quote because you actually said it, even though I suspect you aren't the first person to have ever said it.
I'm not sure I understand but why don't you just set one up. I'm sure there will be takers.
And voila, you will have added fan theory debates.
Well.
As it stands, 31/Atlas is a UFO.
It's been identified as a comet.
And I would love to be around if interstellar intellectuals finally show up...And maybe they will or maybe they won't; which is the current state of play that we have to "accept".
Me too, having then show up has been a dream of mine since I was a kid.
And if a superior intelligence does rock up, then I'm not sure NASA will be able to keep a lid on it...
Probably not, but at least they have to try to lie about it, under the current administration, you get fired for telling the truth.
Notwithstanding that the USA is not necessarily the only nation that might expect a visit.
If they stop in the US first, ICE will probably see that they also visit El Salvador.
He can speculate because with all the gathered data it's difficult to say these objects were asteroids, comets or alien tech. There is no enough evidence.
All of the gathered evidence on 31/Atlas say it's a comet.
If scientists say now that these objects were asteroids or comets it's because they made up some fancy explanations for the erratic behaviour of said objects,
31/Atlas is coming in fast and it's got some qualities that are somewhat unusual, but nothing is inconsistent with it being a comet.
something similar to the theory of evolution, they made up some crappy explanations to sustain their nonsensical theory.
What? What is the problem with the theory of evolution?
Fed Res Chair Powell is a bitter and useless old man. US real GDP for Q2 2025 is +3% per : U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
As for Goldman Sachs, here's their last five years of S&P predictions:
2020: Predicted 3,400, but the market finished 10% higher.
2021: Predicted 4,300, but the market finished 11% higher.
2022: Predicted 5,100, but the market finished 24% lower.
2023: Predicted 4,000, but the market finished 19% higher.
2024: Predicted 5,100, but the market was already 14% higher by October
They have apparently changed their tune after being so consecutively wrong:
2025: Predicted 6,500, but altered the prediction to 6,600 last July. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/s-and-p-500-projected-to-rally-more-than-expected
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" -- Niels Bohr
Well.
As it stands, 31/Atlas is a UFO.
And I would love to be around if interstellar intellectuals finally show up...And maybe they will or maybe they won't; which is the current state of play that we have to "accept".
And if a superior intelligence does rock up, then I'm not sure NASA will be able to keep a lid on it...Notwithstanding that the USA is not necessarily the only nation that might expect a visit.
There's a strong argument that they are already here, there's even a name for the evidence, Dennis Rodman.
Avi Loeb is in the news because he speculates that 31/Atlas is an alien spaceship since it is the most unusual interstellar object we have ever observed. But let's recognize that there have only been three interstellar objects ever observed, the other two being 1I/ʻOumuamua observed in 2017, and 2I/Borisov observed in 2019.
In 2017, Avi Loeb was in the news because he speculated that 1I/ʻOumuamua was an alien spacecraft, and in 2019, Avi Loeb was in the news again because he speculated that 2I/Borisov was an alien spacecraft,
I'll bet I can guess what Avi Loeb will say about the next interstellar object that we discover.
I will demonstrate to y'all that just because you may employ what you understand to be a syllogism, it may not be at all, even though that's the tag you put around its neck.
A syllogism is a logical argument in which a number of posits are posed that are assumed to be true, and when they are, they naturally lead to the justification of the conclusion; Here's a simple example;
P1: 2 is a number
P2: 1+1 yields a number
P3: numbers can be added together to yield a sum
C1: 4 is the sum of P1 and P2.
The rule of a syllogism is that all posits must be true and they must yield the conclusion, and that, therefore, the conclusion is conditional on the truth of the posits, and the conclusion must equal the result of each posits to also be true. If P2 = 1-1 is a number, and that condition does exist as a possible posit, however, the C1 statement ends up being false. Posits and conclusions must all be true. Therefore, another game:
P1: Birds fly
P2: Camels walk
P3: Snakes crawl
C1: Therefore, butterflies swim.
And that's your "syllogism."
The guy who says "Comparing Trump to Hitler is wrong because Eva Braun" is going to teach us about logic LOL.
I hate Trump, but at least he defeated the Communists.
What communists would that be?
Donald Trump reportedly owned a copy of Adolf Hitler’s speeches
I currently own and have read Marx & Engels Commuinist Manifesto, Mao Zedong's Little Red Book, and Vladimir Lenin's The State and Revolution. By your logic, that makes me a Communist. Nope. See my post #10. You're a glove's fit.
It's called, by the way, "know your enemy." That's from Sun Tsu's The Art of War. Own that, too.
I'm not Muslim, but I own the Quran, not Bhuddist, but own Tripitaka, and not Wiccan, but own the Book of Shadows.
Get it? I read. A lot. But I keep my own thoughts.
You forgot to mention that you read them all in their original languages.
BTW, they are spelled "communist" and "Buddhist".
A striking parallel exists in how both Hitler and Trump responded to electoral defeats by challenging the legitimacy of the results. Hitler ran for president of Germany in 1932 but lost to the incumbent, General Paul von Hindenburg.
Following this defeat, Hitler claimed election fraud and took legal action in an attempt to have the results overturned. According to historical accounts, “He lost by 6 million votes. And you know what he did? He claimed election fraud and he went to court to have the election results overturned. The judge threw him out on his theory, says, you know, there may have been some irregularities, inconsistencies, but not in the dimension of that of 6 million votes”. This refusal to accept electoral defeat foreshadowed Hitler’s broader rejection of democratic norms and institutions.
How about the underaged girls thing, did Hitler like to have sex with young girls too?
Not very convincing trans argument because I'm pretty sure most girls can bench that much anyway
I also don't think being unable to bench 135 disqualifies you to be mayor, but I do think it should be disqualifying if you are stupid enough to do it on camera during a campaign.
Even if he could bench press 500 pounds, he still couldn't win an election.
LOL, MAGA logic just cracks me up.
These clowns really think their inane justifications are rational, it is just hysterical.
No wonder Trump said, "I love the poorly educated".
Sure, you say it's undeniable, but here are some quotes from the people that disagree with you:
"My two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart," – Donald Trump
"I would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!" – Donald Trump
"I always told people, you know I'm a very smart guy.” – Donald Trump
“"I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain”. – Donald Trump
“"I'm not changing. I went to the best schools, I'm, like, a very smart person.” – Donald Trump
On why he skips daily intelligence briefings: “"I’m, like, a smart person.” – Donald Trump
Explaining that he didn't release his tax returns because he didn't want to show that "he's paid nothing in federal taxes.": "That makes me smart," – Donald Trump
“…they say, 'Is Donald Trump an intellectual?' Trust me, I’m, like, a smart person," – Donald Trump
AND INTRODUCING -- THE GREATEST MERCHANDISE EVER MADE.
Themes - THE PATRIOT SHOP - Gavin Newsom For Governor Webstore
IF YOU HATE THE PATRIOT SHOP, YOU HATE AMERICA! THANK YOU!
You are right that it looks uncomfortable, besides this post, how do you celebrate?
Is there a movie or documentary you watch, is there food, activities, what?
I looked it up, holy crap they are expensive, better be comfortable as hell at that price.
(typo alert, you spelled Breuer wrong).
Conspiracy, conspiracy!!!
George Soros starting forest fires with his Jewish space lasers must contribute to Global warming.
How did our science deniers miss that?
Abraham Lincoln is widely considered the greatest U.S. president for his wartime leadership in preserving the Union during the Civil War and abolishing slavery. His ability to navigate the nation's greatest crisis, combined with his moral vision for liberty and equality and powerful oratory, has solidified his top ranking in both scholarly and popular assessments of American presidents.
So, let me get this straight.
Lincoln led the country against an insurrection. and Trump led an insurrection against the country?
Is that about it?
Here Are the 10 Most Popular Climate Change Conspiracy Theories
Only 3 out of ten? you're getting lazy, it's time to step it up.
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive". - Donald Trump
You know that China is working on the first nuclear fusion reactor, don't you?
Yeah, along with a lot of other countries, there are over 130 experimental fusion reactors spread across 50 countries, I'm pretty sure it's a race that nobody will win.
I don't believe fusion is ever going to be an economically feasible energy source.
If this is what I think it is, you should have put it in the Religion forum.
But it sounds like he wants to make a philosophical point about Exodus 3, so it works in either forum.
Let’s not rewrite American history. Lincoln was a great president. Trump is the worst.
Bingo, you nailed it.
Damn man, you really know your stuff.
Are you Lincoln's biographer or what?
Thank you for that well-thought out response.
Thank you for giving us something of substance to discuss. I'm glad it seems well-thought out, I've been thinking about it for decades.
When you say you're a dualist, I assume you mean a substance dualist rather than a property dualist.
Yes, you could say I'm a substance dualist, but I absolutely hate that term, referring to consciousness as a substance is misleading and jacks up the conversation from the very beginning. Let’s just say I believe the physical world and consciousness are two ontologically distinct kinds of things.
I can understand wanting to reject physicalism because of its inability to account for conscious experience, which is incorrigible and undeniable. But it seems to me substance dualism has issues of its own when it comes to mental causation, one of which I was happy to see you brought up.
The so-called interaction problem is contrived, simply declaring the observed and experienced interaction between mind and physical reality is metaphysically impossible is not a coherent argument.
As I think I said before, we do have an intuition that our mental states, by virtue of their intentionality/aboutness, have some causal influence over our behavior.
I'm not usually a semantic stickler, but I don't think it's helpful to call it an intuition, if your philosophy is to be grounded in reality, then it is more appropriate to consider it an observation. It is a straightforward and undeniable fact that we observe the interaction of the mental and physical during most of our waking moments.
It is true that minds perceive intra-mental states differently from sensory phenomena, and this cognitive difference results in mental and physical phenomena having seemingly disparate properties, but that should have no bearing on our understanding of causation between the two.
But what puzzles me is how that happens. I've already articulated why I think that's problematic on physicalism, but it seems to me to be problematic on dualism as well.
We have a fairly good understanding of how physical things can have causal influence over other physical things, but how does something that isn't physical have causal influence over something that is?
I don’t really think there is a dichotomy there, I think our understanding of both are the same.
David Hume defined how we understand cause and effect, and three hundred years later I don’t think our understanding has changed all that much. Our current understanding of cause and effect does not involve any kind of explanatory causal power or forces, we do not understand cause and effect to be rationally related through logical deduction, causation is inductively presumed. The extent of our understanding of causation results from observations of the sequencing of events that are presumed to be related. That’s why science is inductive, what science presents to us are generalizations of observed patterns of the sequence of events that we understand to be cause and effect. That’s also why science is descriptive rather than explanatory. Causation is based on the observation of patterns in nature; science can tell us that force equals mass times acceleration (f=ma), which is nothing but a mathematical generalization of the observations, but it does explain to us why f=ma, nor does it tell us why force doesn’t equal mass squared times acceleration times 4.
So, if that is our understanding of how physical things have causal influence over other physical things, why isn’t it the same with our understanding of something that isn’t physical. As I already mentioned, we observe that our mental thoughts have causal effects in the physical world, it would be a pretty good trick to type an argument that proves that it is metaphysically impossible to type the argument. Our understanding of causation between immaterial thoughts and the material world should similarly be a matter of observing the sequential connection between an intention and the resultant action in the physical world.
For reductionists, they at least equate mental states with physical states, and that's how they explain it (though it doesn't solve the semantic issue). But how does it work if there's no physical component to mental states--if mental states are part of a non-physical substance of some sort?
Do you just accept that it does happen and leave it an open question as to how it happens? Or do you have some thoughts on the "how"?
I’ve been typically verbose already, but I’d also like to point out that there is nothing illogical or unscientific about this analysis.
A large part of current physical science examines non-physical realities, including other dimensions, and the fact is that current scientific understanding is that you cannot reduce all of reality to a single ontological level; it certainly doesn’t in any way say that all of reality is purely physical,
In science there are plenty of things that are not physical, but that have causal power to affect things that are physical, in fact, the study of immaterial entities are foundational to physics. The concept of a field in physics is not a physical or material thing, but it has an effect on physical objects. Newtonian gravity is a field that has an observable and measurable effect on anything with mass, but it is certainly an immaterial thing. In Relativity theory, gravity is a curvature of spacetime, still not a physical or material thing. All of the unifying theories of physics postulate more dimensions, most reference ten or eleven dimensions, that is to say that reality ultimately consists of at least six additional dimensions that transcend the four-dimensional frame of reference of physicalism. Physicalism is not supported by science, quite the opposite, physicalism would require the causal closure of the material world and science pretty much abandoned the attempt to demonstrate that over a hundred years ago. In fact, Kurt Godel provided a logically consistent proof that such causal closure is impossible, even in principle.
When science drilled down into the material world as far as it could, it found the physical world to consist of probability waves in Hilbert space, “particles” that move from place to place without traveling the distance in between, and a very strong argument that a conscious observation is required to collapse the wave function making potential reality become actual. Physical science does not support the argument that the mental is an effect of the material world, it does make a strong argument that the physical world is an effect of the mental.
OMG, do you think it will be Putin vs Trump!
No way, when he needs to fight, Trump develops bone spurs.
