Forum Replies Created
-
The Wiki article on Trump is excellent, I’d say. Not that I’ve read it. But it looks like its worth reading.
Here’s the beginning of it:
Trump’s political positions are widely viewed as populist.[8][9] Among academics, political writers, and pundits, Trump and his politics have been classified in greater detail, but in varying ways.
Liberal economist and columnist Paul Krugman disputes that Trump is a populist, arguing that his policies favor the rich over those less well off.[10] Harvard Kennedy School political scientist Pippa Norris has described Trump as a “populist authoritarian” analogous to European parties such as the Swiss People’s Party, Austrian Freedom Party, Swedish Democrats, and Danish People’s Party.[11] Political satirist and columnist Walter Shapiro and political commentator Jonathan Chait describe Trump as authoritarian.[12][13] Conservative commentator Mary Katharine Ham characterized Trump as a “casual authoritarian,” saying “he is a candidate who has happily and proudly spurned the entire idea of limits on his power as an executive and doesn’t have any interest in the Constitution and what it allows him to do and what does not allow him to do. That is concerning for people who are interested in limited government.”[14] Charles C. W. Cooke of the National Review has expressed similar views, terming Trump an “anti-constitutional authoritarian.“[15] Libertarian journalist Nick Gillespie, by contrast, calls Trump “populist rather than an authoritarian”.[16]
Legal experts spanning the political spectrum, including many conservative and libertarian scholars, have suggested that “Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law.”[17] Law professors Randy E. Barnett, Richard Epstein, and David G. Post, for example, suggest that Trump has little or no awareness of, or commitment to, the constitutional principles of separation of powers and federalism.[17] Law professor Ilya Somin believes that Trump “poses a serious threat to the press and the First Amendment,” citing Trump’s proposal to expand defamation laws to make it easier to sue journalists and his remark that Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos will “have problems” if he is elected president.[17]
Republican opinion journalist Josh Barro terms Trump a “moderate Republican,” saying that except on immigration, his views are “anything but ideologically rigid, and he certainly does not equate deal making with surrender.”[18] MSNBC host Joe Scarborough says Trump is essentially more like a “centrist Democrat” on social issues.[19] Journalist and political analyst John Heilemann has characterized Trump as liberal on social issues,[20] while conservative talk radio host and political commentator Rush Limbaugh says that Heilemann is seeing in Trump what he wants to see.[21]
Trump is nativist in the opinion of Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt.[22] Conservative writer and editor Rod Dreher, a Trump opponent, writes that the term “nativist” is laden with negative connotations and is typically used as a pejorative;[23] Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, instead calls Trump an “immigration hawk” and supports Trump’s effort to return immigration levels to a historically average level.[24]…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump
Trump on Waterboarding, fwiw:
===================================
In December, Trump started demanding that the US target the families of ISIS members in addition to “bombing the sh*t” out of the terrorist organization. He went further in February, advocating for torture as a method of interrogation.“I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding,” Trump declared in the February debate just ahead of the New Hampshire primary. Calls for bringing torture back became a regular applause line at rallies, despite the likelihood that both of these ideas would require the American military to obey orders that violate international laws and federal anti-torture statutes.
Pressed at a debate on March 3 over whether the American military would obey his order to violate international laws and the Geneva Convention to do such things, Trump insisted they’d listen to him, despite condemnation from military leaders and conservatives.
“Frankly, when I say they’ll do as I tell them, they’ll do as I tell them,” he said.
2. The military shouldn’t break the law, after all.
He then reversed this position the very next day, on March 4, in a statement to the Wall Street Journal, saying he “will not order military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters.”
3. The laws forbidding torture should be changed so no one has to break them.
Not long after terrorist attacks in Brussels killed at least 28 people and injured dozens more on March 22, Trump called in to CNN to expand on his call to legalize waterboarding.
“Look, I think we have to change our law on the waterboarding thing, where they can chop off heads and drown people in cages, in heavy steel cages and we can’t water board,” Trump told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We have to change our laws and we have to be able to fight at least on almost equal basis.”
When Blitzer reminded Trump that military leaders don’t support torture and that it violates international agreements that the United States has signed, Trump called opposition to torture a “political decision.”
“I would say that the eggheads that came up with this international law should turn on their television and watch CNN right now, because I’m looking at scenes on CNN right now as I’m speaking to you that are absolutely atrocious,” Trump said. “And I would be willing to bet, when I am seeing all of the bodies laying all over the floor, including young, beautiful children laying dead on the floor, I would say if they watched that, maybe, just maybe they’ll approve of waterboarding and other things.”
Current position: Trump says he’s against violating international laws or ordering others to do so, but wants to change the laws to legalize, at minimum, waterboarding.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801He does focus a lot on an issue that does not affect WV much, and i dont follow the issue much: Immigration.
====================================
Trump released a comprehensive policy plan for immigration reform — something many other Republican candidates have yet to do.In it, Trump lays out what he plans to do…Most notably, the plan promises widespread deportation, including the “mandatory return of all criminal aliens,” or undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes.
“We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go,” he said on Meet the Press. Neither in his interview nor in the plan, however, did Trump say how this would be accomplished.
Trump’s plan said that he would end what’s known as birthright citizenship, which guarantees citizenship to almost all people born within U.S. borders, regardless of the legal status of their parents. That right is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. A number of other Republican candidates have also expressed support for this idea, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Rand Paul, and Sen. Lindsey Graham.
As for border security, Trump doubled down on his pledge to have Mexico build and pay for an enormous wall across the border. Under the Trump administration, the U.S. would impose various penalties on the Mexican government and its officials until it agreed to build and pay for the wall.
“Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards — of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options].”
Under Trump’s plan, businesses would be required to hire “American workers first”; monetary penalties would be increased for people who overstay their visas; and the J-1 visa jobs program, which allows kids from other countries to participate in things like summer exchange programs, would be terminated. Trump’s plan also calls for tripling the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, which are in charge of enforcing immigration laws.
The plan may be difficult to implement. Many of the initiatives, such as tripling the number of ICE officers, would require huge increases in federal funding — increases that would most likely have to be approved by Congress.
Interestingly, the most frequent source Trump cites to back up the ideas in his plan is the right-wing news site Breitbart News. At least six of the conservative site’s articles are linked to in Trump’s plan, far more than any other source. Trump has done numerous exclusive interviews with the site, which on Sunday reported that his immigration plan would “get Americans back to work.”
I decided that I’m not only going to vote for Dr Jill Stein, but I’m gonna donate enough to get a t-shirt so I can wear it around town.
Do Greenies make cool Tees? I’ll wear a whack Tee, but it’d obviously be better if it were cooler.
——————–
Yeah, after the Calif result, I guess its time i took down my Bernie sign, and made a big green Jill sign.Maybe I’ll get a Tee shirt too. Or maybe I’ll just get some green textile paint
and a white shirt and make my own. Maybe have a green paint party.bnw has to be loving this — we’re gonna get Trump elected, LoL.
Well, so be it.
w
vI became a boxing fan because of Ali and I stopped being one when he retired. He was the brightest star during the greatest era of heavy weight boxing when Ali, Frazier, Norton and Foreman were contenders.
————-
same with me, basically. Ali drew me into boxing, and when he retired i really lost interest.Ali, Frazier, Norton, Foreman — i wonder how many total concussions they all had.
I used to assume MMA was more dangerous, but maybe its less dangerous.
There is less of a “constant pounding” I would think. Maybe more danger to knees and joints but less to brains.w
vThis state, known as a quantum spin liquid, causes electrons – thought to be indivisible building blocks of nature – to break into pieces.
The researchers, including physicists from the University of Cambridge, measured the first signatures of these fractional particles, known as Majorana fermions, in a two-dimensional material with a structure similar to graphene…
—————-Majorana particles – Fundamentally confusing
A completely new type of particle is observed for the first time. What does that mean, fundamentally?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2014/oct/05/majorana-princeton-particles-fundamentally-confusingYou could define particle physics as the quest to discover the fundamental constituents of nature, and to understand how they interact. The so-called “Standard Model” of physics contains a list of particles which are not made of anything else, and of which everything else is made.
The question of how something can be made of nothing, and specifically how can a fundamental particle have mass, is both basic and deep. The answer – in the Standard Model – is that the mass of fundamental particles comes about because of the way they interact with Brout-Englert-Higgs field. The Higgs boson is the evidence that this works, and the matter particles which get their mass this way are called “Dirac fermions” because they are described by Paul Dirac’s 1928 equation. In the Standard Model, electrons, quarks and neutrinos are all Dirac fermions.
There has been small flurry of physics headlines over the last few days about the discovery, by physicists at Princeton, of a new kind of particle – a Majorana fermion. Proposed by the Italian physicist Ettore Majorana back in 1937 – a while after Dirac, but well before Brout, Englert and Higgs – so-called “Majorana fermions” get their mass via a unique and previously unobserved self-interaction, which is completely different from Dirac fermions, and nothing to do with Brout, Englert or Higgs*.
A consequence of the way this new mass mechanism works is that Majorana fermions must be their own anti-particle. Since particles and anti-particles have opposite electric charge, this can only work for neutral particles. That is to say, an electron has charge -1, so its antiparticle (the positron) has charge +1, and they are distinct from each other, and so cannot constitue a Majorana particle. The only possible candidate for a fundamental Majorana fermion in the Standard Model is the neutrino, since all the other fermions have charge. In fact, many speculative theories that extend the Standard Model – to explain some of the puzzles it doesn’t deal with – contain Majorana neutrinos. There are several highly sensitive experiments around the world searching for evidence, in rare nuclear decays, that neutrinos are Majorana fermions. It is a hot topic.
AdvertisementSo I was excited to read about the new particle, and somewhat diappointed when I did so to find out that it is not a fundamental Majorana fermion, still less a neutrino. A bit of a let-down for me and my particle-physics colleagues. Nevertheless, the result is interesting for a number reasons.
What has been seen is a quantum state in one-atom-thick wire which in a certain energy range behaves like a Majorana fermion. It is not a fundamental particle, it is a composite state, and the behaviour emerges from the interactions of atoms, electrons and photons, described by quantum electrodynamics, in which all fermions are Dirac. The fact that Majorana behaviour has been predicted, and then observed, to emerge as collective behaviour from a “more fundamental” (i.e. higher energy, shorter distance scale) theory is fascinating.
I guess that, given a mathematical principle such as the Majorana mass-mechanism, there are two distinct types of question you can ask. The one particle physicists tend to ask is “Does this appear as part of the basic structure of the universe – does it explain things we already see, answer problems we already have?”. However, one could equally ask “Can we construct a physical system in which this mechanism actually occurs, and if so what can we do with it and what can it teach us?”
The new discovery arises from addressing the second type of question. This kind of approach has yielded results before. For example, studies of emergent supersymmetry in low-energy optical systems continue even while fundamental supersymmetric particles remain elusive. It is also worth remembering that non-relativistic precursers of the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism were influential in the development of the Standard Model; and also that there are amazingly interesting (and useful!) phenomena such as superconductivity which arise in such tricky low-energy quantum systems.
AdvertisementI’ve talked about “fundamental particle” a lot in the above discussion, but it is important to be aware that this is just a working definition. The quantum-mechanical principles at play in the complex, composite systems at Princeton are “fundamental” to our understanding of physics, in that they form its foundations, even if the Majorana particle itself is not. When we say that an electron is a fundamental particle, we just mean that we have not been able to see any substructure inside one yet. Or to put it another way, no matter how hard we have tried (and we have tried very hard!) we haven’t broken an electron into pieces yet. It is still possible that we may eventually discover electrons, and even the Higgs boson, to be emergent phenomena of a more fundamental theory, just as these new Majorana fermions emerge from the Standard Model. Each time we look more closely, we have to be ready for surprises; ready to modify what we think of as “fundamental”.
* Nothing to do with this, either, although it does seem to crop up by mistake quite often in conference talks on the subject.
There is a pretty detailed account of the Princeton experiment and its new results here, although regretably the paper itself is not open access.
Jon Butterworth has written a book about being involved in the discovery of the Higgs boson, Smashing Physics, available here . Some interesting events where you might be able to hear him talk about it etc are listed here. Also, Twitter.
