Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

I hope it's more like tug-of-war style where they stack up or count the number of lies and half-lies they tell. Put that on screen so we have a running count. Sort of like a scoreboard for a sporting event.

Here, I'll just put up what they'll report:

Trump 97
Rodham 0

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Surprisingly, studies have shown a significant fuel savings IF the engine sits off at lights/traffic for 10 seconds or longer.

My Malibu actually gets better fuel mileage than the ECO model with the smaller engine.

I can understand the fuel mileage because a smaller engine has to work harder to run what is a relatively large sedan. I still find it funny they insist on throwing V4s into SUVs. Terrible.

[MaizeRage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Cronyism at its finest. http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-...te-was-a-sham/

The reason they granted immunity to anybody and everybody below Hillary was because the whole point of the exercise was a witch hunt to get Hillary. This is basically just whining that they went for it on fourth and long rather than punting.

I would think a former NSA analyst that bemoans partisan politics would spend more time on how his former employer actually did get hacked, rather than how Hillary's email server maybe coulda/woulda/shoulda, but ultimately didn't get hacked. But that's me.

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Next model year the Jags won't have an off switch for it either is what I've been told.

I thought the old logic was stopping/starting the engine takes more gas than letting it idle? Is that wrong in the world of advanced EFI, but correct in a carbureted world?

I thought starting and stopping an engine created more wear and tear on them. Has that now changed with the advancements in lubrications? What about the starter motor, how long are those expected to last in a city car with such a feature these days?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

I thought starting and stopping an engine created more wear and tear on them. Has that now changed with the advancements in lubrications? What about the starter motor, how long are those expected to last in a city car with such a feature these days?

Either that, or they have a sort of "standby" state, sort of like when you "turn off" modern electronics: If they're still plugged in, then they're not actually "off", they're just in a "standby" state. The only way to turn it "off" is to unplug it. HUGE boon for the power companies with all that power unknowingly wasted.

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Either that, or they have a sort of "standby" state, sort of like when you "turn off" modern electronics: If they're still plugged in, then they're not actually "off", they're just in a "standby" state. The only way to turn it "off" is to unplug it. HUGE boon for the power companies with all that power unknowingly wasted.

A standby status wouldn't apply for a combustion engine. Either it's cycling or it's not. If it's not, then it has to be restarted, which would require the starter motor to engage, or some sort of "clutch jumping" process, which could then only be achieved with a hybrid vehicle.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

I just can't imagine the starting and stopping is good even for a gasoline engine. All of my engineering instincts tell me that steady state is better than the dynamics of startup and shutdown.

[CLS]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Either that, or they have a sort of "standby" state, sort of like when you "turn off" modern electronics: If they're still plugged in, then they're not actually "off", they're just in a "standby" state. The only way to turn it "off" is to unplug it. HUGE boon for the power companies with all that power unknowingly wasted.

I once was talking to an engineer who was working on ways to determine whether a television was on or off. I said "Huh? Can't you just tell if it's drawing power?" He said that some TVs actually draw more power in an "off" state than others do in an "on" state.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

I do hope it's Pop Up Video style.

Someone agrees.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Surprisingly, studies have shown a significant fuel savings IF the engine sits off at lights/traffic for 10 seconds or longer.

My Malibu actually gets better fuel mileage than the ECO model with the smaller engine.

They better put in much stronger starters and batteries because they're gonna be hit more often than a Bill Clinton intern. (C'mon, it's the politics thread. )

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Here, I'll just put up what they'll report:

Trump 97
Rodham 0

I have it:

Trump: Eleventy-billion
Clinton: Two

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

I have it:

Trump: Eleventy-billion
Clinton: Two

That sounds about right. Politifact ranked 13% of Hillary's statements as "pants on fire." And 53% of Trump's.

If one candidate lies more than the other, pointing that out is not "bias" or "editorial journalism." It's just fact. As much as the Echo Chamber has normalized lying and having your own facts as the modus operandi of the far right for the last twenty years, they haven't affected the structure of reality. Fox proved that if you tell a lie that your audience believes then your audience will then use the lie itself as "proof" of its preconceptions. But outside the RWNJ nothing was changed, and truth still means what it means.

The full measure of the monstrosity of the GOP nominee is that Hillary Clinton is far and away the most honest of the two candidates.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Regarding the lying. Just remember. It's raining raisins (John Oliver reference).

https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-oliv...144814010.html

"The point is, this campaign has been dominated by scandals, but it is dangerous to think there's an equal number on both sides," Oliver said. "And you can be irritated by some of Hillary's. That is understandable. But you should then be f---ing outraged by Trump's."

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

I have often thought of this now nearly 20 year old passage by Christopher Hitchens while reading this thread and following this campaign. I won't attempt more context than that:

The privatized and privateering class of spin doctors, advisers, consultants, fundraisers, and reputation mongers displays a weird combination of cynicism and naiveté. It knows better than anyone else what the candidates and parties are really like. But it is compelled, when disgust or alarm reaches a certain pitch, to act as if only a member of the "other" faction could stoop so low. This falsity and cheapness has now reached a point where, palpable as it is even to half indifferent readers and viewers, it may have become invisible to the participants themselves. Not long ago in this magazine David Brooks mapped a political sociology elaborating on the notion that the country was in theory divisible between heartland "red" districts and more coastal "blue" ones, the colors showing (rather counterintuitively, perhaps) a respective difference between Republican and Democratic areas. Soon afterward one of Bill Clinton's reliable yes-men, Paul Begala, issued a response, asserting that it was in "red" districts that gay men like Matthew Shepard were lynched, or black men like James Byrd were dragged behind pickup trucks until they died.

If this meant anything, it meant that the difference between a donkey and an elephant was the difference between democracy and fascism, or between pluralism and absolutism. But just wait for the good people's party to be caught doing something shady or vile; at once you will be told that it's no worse than what the bad people's party would do or has done. Immediately, in other words, the apologist will admit that the game is up, and that he is judging his own team by a standard (of ghastliness in others) that he himself helped to set. "They all do it" means, in this circle, "We all do it." But the apologist won't concede this consciously or honestly. Faced with the task of explaining the Clinton pardons, including one to Marc Rich, Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior Clinton adviser and friend of Dick Morris's, immediately responds, in The Clinton Wars, that Richard Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa; and as for the $190,000 in gifts accumulated by the Clintons, it was "roughly the same amount as the preceding Bushes had accepted." Since he elsewhere accuses the Republican Party of being essentially lawless and segregationist, he might admit that he's setting himself a low standard. But he doesn't get the joke. And of course by the time he makes the accusation he has joined the ranks of the unlucky political-consultant high-flyers—the ones who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills to pay off. This frequent misfortune often entails the writing of a long and turgid and self-justifying book, in return for a completely ridiculous publisher's advance.

Fairly, it should be said that Hitchens held the Clintons in utter contempt. I have also often wondered if he is somewhere up there, looking down upon Mrs. Clinton's new ascendancy, which of those two facts cause him more consternation.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

I love the British press ...

Proof that size DOES matter! <-- This actually IS safe for work.