The News Thread

In 2011, several citizen scientists flagged one particular star as “interesting” and “bizarre.” The star was emitting a light pattern that looked stranger than any of the others Kepler was watching.

The light pattern suggests there is a big mess of matter circling the star, in tight formation. That would be expected if the star were young. When our solar system first formed, four and a half billion years ago, a messy disk of dust and debris surrounded the sun, before gravity organized it into planets, and rings of rock and ice.

But this unusual star isn’t young. If it were young, it would be surrounded by dust that would give off extra infrared light. There doesn’t seem to be an excess of infrared light around this star.

It appears to be mature.

And yet, there is this mess of objects circling it. A mess big enough to block a substantial number of photons that would have otherwise beamed into the tube of the Kepler Space Telescope. If blind nature deposited this mess around the star, it must have done so recently. Otherwise, it would be gone by now. Gravity would have consolidated it, or it would have been sucked into the star and swallowed, after a brief fiery splash.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/...ng-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/?utm_source=SFFB
 
1. Trump believes that America should not intervene militarily in other country’s problems without being compensated for doing so.

So Sweden can now bill USA for all the Iraki refugies who made to Sweden?
Sweet!
So you gonna pay for the 80 000 ref. or do we just ship them over to you?
10 years - $15000 a year and person = A fuck load of cash.
Cough it up, mofo!
 
Hilary said she didn't want to get elected for her last name being Clinton but had no problem establishing herself as the possible first woman president...and somehow attributed Obama with every white President before him, kind of weird.

Bernie had a good debate, but it would be nice to not have 3 people who have no chance and see Hillary and Bernie go into more detail
 
I was disappointed that Bernie deflected rather than met head-on the criticisms of his record on gun control. His foreign policy remarks weren't very inspiring either (e.g. saying we should never act "unilaterally" when even the Iraq War was a coalition). His unwillingness to attack Hillary also was to his disadvantage. I admire that he's not playing dirty but it hurts his electability, to be honest, especially when his opponent is such a polished orator.

Perhaps this was the first time a lot of people heard Sanders speak, but I felt he was repeating, word for word, a lot of the messages he's been making since he started running. It's an important message, but he could work on articulating it with more variety, especially when running against a rhetorician like Hillary.

That said, he didn't look weak, just not as powerful as Hillary. The fact that all the stock attacks on her from the Republicans were not really at issue in the debate made her appear the victor.

But yes, the other three candidates' presence was a waste of time that detracted from a more constructive debate that went into much more detail. Jim Webb was such a fucking baby who spent half his time whining that he didn't get enough time to whine. The other two were as inspiring as a block of wood.
 
What point are you referring to where he deflected on gun control? I thought his view on rural vs. urban is entirely valid in the debate on gun control.

Thought his foreign policy was pretty spot on. Especially in the Middle East. And of course he's not playing the scare tactic that all of ISIS is coming to America to behead everyone.

Bernie has to do that, because no one knows who he is nor his positions. And he's demonized as the "socialist." I don't think you are understanding his perspective on electability, one where attacks do not appeal but rather representing Americans, something that only Trump is trying to achieve. Hilary has leeched onto Bernie's tactic since his rise in the polls.

I don't get how Hilary looked that strong in the debate. She was confronted on a lot of issues where she flip flopped or was wrong, especially when Chaffee blasted her on the Iraq War. And the banking crisis where she looked terrible. I really don't think Hilary won that debate
 
What point are you referring to where he deflected on gun control? I thought his view on rural vs. urban is entirely valid in the debate on gun control.

There was not enough time to elucidate that distinction, and he was jumped on before he could. I was referring to the gun control legislation in the 90's he voted against multiple times. He basically said "it's complicated" and with the, yes, valid urban-rural distinction he made, he was on his way to addressing that, but ran out of time.

Thought his foreign policy was pretty spot on. Especially in the Middle East. And of course he's not playing the scare tactic that all of ISIS is coming to America to behead everyone.

He didn't appear that interested in the issue, making him look like a Rand Paul type when it comes to foreign policy (his consistent record against foreign intervention was a strength, though). I wasn't looking for a hawkish position, but one that demonstrated that he was knowledgable and passionate about it. His point about Putin was a great one, though.

Bernie has to do that, because no one knows who he is nor his positions. And he's demonized as the "socialist." I don't think you are understanding his perspective on electability, one where attacks do not appeal but rather representing Americans, something that only Trump is trying to achieve. Hilary has leeched onto Bernie's tactic since his rise in the polls.

You're probably right. But I think he missed the opportunity to argue how a form of capitalism and democratic socialism can be harmonized. He didn't say that, and instead came off as believing the two are fundamentally opposed.

The Mr./Mrs. Nice Guy approach is certainly to Hillary's advantage, and is making her appear to "safe" option. That's what I'm getting at.

I don't get how Hilary looked that strong in the debate. She was confronted on a lot of issues where she flip flopped or was wrong, especially when Chaffee blasted her on the Iraq War. And the banking crisis where she looked terrible. I really don't think Hilary won that debate

She exuded the most confidence and seemed most relaxed, and that has an effect. But on substantive issues I agree with you. What made her look good also was that she adopted the "moderate progressive" stance, whereby instead of advocating for simple, sweeping reforms, she presents things much more nuanced and seemingly feasible.
 
My favorite Bernie meme to date:

7lAD6N8.jpg
 
My favorite Bernie meme to date:

7lAD6N8.jpg

Yeah, that's a solid critique. Anderson got to probe him a little bit on population of Denmark vs. USA, but obviously he couldn't go into detail in that format. I would like to hear his thoughts on the differences and how America would have to adapt etc.

He didn't appear that interested in the issue, making him look like a Rand Paul type when it comes to foreign policy (his consistent record against foreign intervention was a strength, though). I wasn't looking for a hawkish position, but one that demonstrated that he was knowledgable and passionate about it. His point about Putin was a great one, though.
He said he voted for Kosovo intervention and Afghanistan, I think those are (the only?) two legitimate intervention policies following the Vietnam war

You're probably right. But I think he missed the opportunity to argue how a form of capitalism and democratic socialism can be harmonized. He didn't say that, and instead came off as believing the two are fundamentally opposed.

The Mr./Mrs. Nice Guy approach is certainly to Hillary's advantage, and is making her appear to "safe" option. That's what I'm getting at.

I don't think the average American can be educated on how much socialism is in our society already, especially in a debate where everyone will jump in/attack etc. But yes, one of the problems of having the debate structured like this. I don't think I fully understand what his position is on the economy and would like to hear more.

Bernie did have a moment that Dak confronted Mort with about a month ago, when Bernie said he'd rather have everyone doing well then some doing amazing. That's a rather simplistic view on society imo and everyone can't be doing well..but alas, we did not get to have that discussion.

She exuded the most confidence and seemed most relaxed, and that has an effect. But on substantive issues I agree with you. What made her look good also was that she adopted the "moderate progressive" stance, whereby instead of advocating for simple, sweeping reforms, she presents things much more nuanced and seemingly feasible.

I don't think she was more confident than Bernie, especially in the 2nd half when it all started crumbling around her.

Moderate progressive doesn't make sense, and I think (hope) people are starting to realize the machine that has driven her political aspirations for quite some time.
 
Bernie did have a moment that Dak confronted Mort with about a month ago, when Bernie said he'd rather have everyone doing well then some doing amazing. That's a rather simplistic view on society imo and everyone can't be doing well..but alas, we did not get to have that discussion.

Some studies have been done that showed that a majority of people would rather for no one to get anything (or even everyone lose an equal amount) than for everyone to gain, but for others to gain more than themselves. People's happiness is generally relative: If everyone else is living in one room grass huts, I'm pretty damn happy with my 2 room grass hut. If everyone else is living in 10ksqft marble mansions, I'm going to be shouting for "social justice" from my 6ksqft brick mansion.
 
Bernie, the accidental racist:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/13/bernie_sanders_on_guns_at_the_debate.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top

Sanders fumbled, raising his typical retort that he represents a gun-friendly state but supports gun control elsewhere.

This answer is pretty much the worst one Sanders could possibly provide. By alleging that urban areas need stricter gun laws than rural ones, the senator adds an awkward racial undertone to the gun debate. Vermont—which, Sanders claims, can handle loose gun restrictions—is 1 percent black. Baltimore—which Sanders has cited as an area in need of stricter gun control—is about 64 percent black. It’s alarmingly easy to read Sanders’ rejoinder here as an implication that rural whites can be trusted with guns and urban blacks cannot be.

To borrow a phrase from the climate change caucus: "The data speaks for itself". Bernie's entire state has less homicides than the city of Baltimore does, and by quite a large margin - and with some of the laxest if not the most lax gun laws in the country.

Vermont, per the Death Penalty Initiative, also consistently has either the lowest or second-lowest number of murders in the country. And FBI statistics show that the state routinely ranks as one of the five safest. In 2012, there were eight murders there — just two of which involved firearms. Why is this interesting? Well, because it does some damage to the idea that there is an ironclad link between the availability of firearms and crime. Not only does Vermont essentially have no gun laws at all, but the state’s residents own more guns per capita than those of any other. (It is estimated that between 70 and 75 percent of Vermonters own firearms).

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381136/vermont-safe-and-happy-and-armed-teeth-charles-c-w-cooke

https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2015/08/07/baltimore-surges-past-detroit-in-number-of-homicides-in-2015/

Baltimore has become the second deadliest city in America (after St. Louis) with homicides surpassing those of Detroit, the longtime poster child for urban violence.

During the first seven months of 2015, Detroit police reported 163 slayings. That compares to 189 killings recorded through July in Baltimore.

With 10% fewer residents than Detroit, Baltimore’s current homicide rate (deaths per 100,000 people) is running about 26% above that of the Motor City.
 
I need to understand the opposite to this; I agreed with Bernie's response during the debate.

In 2005, Sanders voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a terrible law that shields gun sellers and manufacturers from legal liability in most lawsuits.

On Bernie's response to rural vs. urban, I read it differently. I read that Bernie represents a largely rural state with a large hunting tradition, as he and O'Malley both called it.

"The views on gun control are different in rural states vs. urban states." [actual quote, no paraphrasing] Basically turns this into a Repub (lax control) vs. Dem (more control) issue.

Thanks to the PLCAA, it doesn’t matter whether a gun store negligently sells 4,000 rounds of ammunition to a lunatic in Vermont or Maryland. The store is protected from a lawsuit thanks to the law Sanders still supports.
Bernie admitted that this was a flaw in the law..


Slate is really reaching here, I think. Would do the argument more justice if slate quoted him directly here.