Space Entrepreneur Opines Donald Trump Could Do an Inspirational Space Program (examiner.com)

MarkWhittington writes: Robert Bigelow of Bigelow Aerospace opened his new Twitter account with the suggestion that Donald Trump, the mercurial businessman who is running for president, might just give the United States an inspirational space program. Then, thinking better of the idea, Bigelow deleted the tweet and replaced it with an image of the Olympus inflatable space module, which his company envisions as being the basis of a commercial space station.

Comments

Paging Mr Adams

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't we learn that the real purpose of the President was to distract attention away from those in power?

Re:Paging Mr Adams

[wonkey_monkey]

Donald's just this guy, y'know?

Re:Paging Mr Adams

[jandersen]

Well, to be fair, I can see how he might inspire everybody to want to get off this planet as fast as possible.

Re:Paging Mr Adams

[RockDoctor]

But it would be more efficient to get Trump off the planet.

Space suit? who mentioned a spacesuit.

Leak checks are an unnecessary expense. And probably a way for the unions to try to get into the space industry too.

Oxygen? He generates his own "oxygen of publicity".

He's right

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I think most of the planet would support sending Trump into space.

Re:He's right

[aliquis]

I think most of the planet would support sending Trump into space.

Feel free to send him to Sweden as a ruling dictator for some time.

Just what we need.

Re:He's right

[PopeRatzo]

Just curious, are you the only person in Sweden who supports Trump? Or are there others?

There is a very active neo-Nazi movement in Sweden. They're guys who talk a lot about "white genocide" and their "Viking heritage". There's a fairly well-known podcast they run, called "Red Ice Radio" that deals entirely with these issues. Note: they started out as an "alternative" podcast about paranormal stuff and conspiracies and UFOs and stuff, and just morphed over time into full-blown virulent Nazi.

The Swedish neo-Nazi movement is mostly made up of people who are pissed about all the dark-complexioned people invading their lovely field of vision and luring away their women. You've never seen a more pathetic bunch.

Oh, and they're also on about feminism and "PC culture" (which basically means they're pissed about not being able to get dates).

Re:He's right

[PopeRatzo]

Along with Rosie O'Donnell, into the sun.

Now there's a topical reference from 2003. "Rosie O'Donnell". What's the matter, you're too good to reference Murphy Brown or Jane Fonda?

Re:He's right

[Tablizer]

no return trip

and a broken radio.

Re:He's right

[Yoda222]

I'm living in Sweden (but I'm not Swedish) and I definitively don't support Trump (I don't really see "good" candidates, but he's more at the bottom of the list of the possible one) According to discussion with a few colleagues, they are also not supporting Trump. But it's difficult to know more details, swedes don't really like to talk about politics.

Re:He's right

[CanadianMacFan]

I took it to mean that if Trump won then there would be a race to colonize space in order to escape the planet.

Re:He's right

[quenda]

Just curious, are you the only person in Sweden who supports Trump?

Maybe he hates Trump, but sees Trump as the toxic chemo drug needed to free Sweden of its current cancer.
Sweden was once liberal, but more and more of the population are from extremely conservative cultures.

Re:He's right

[ArmoredDragon]

It's not just Sweden. Fascism itself has seen somewhat of a resurgence in Europe in the last 15 years. (Though technically it hasn't ever really gone away, as Spain was officially Fascist until 1976, and official Fascist parties have existed in some form throughout Europe ever since Benito Mussolini coined the term.)

France itself has some 28% of the vote going towards Front National (a fascist party,) where it otherwise holds a majority vote, and Denmark has similar numbers, with about 15 other European countries having somewhere between 10% and 20% of the vote going to Fascist parties. The EU itself thus has quite a number of Fascists holding seats in its parliament. The only places that it doesn't exist are places where it's outright banned (i.e. Germany)

If I were to guess, I would say the recent uptick might be attributable to a response to the perceived threat from the growing muslim population, which would explain why France is seeing such high numbers.

Re:He's right

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, I for one am glad that the Swedish media is actively declining to report mass rapes by the Muslim immigrants that the Swedish left has imported. Why did they do it? Well, to avoid giving the Swedish right (apparently they do exist) any proof that their opinions were backed up by facts. Good job Sweden, and keep up the good work. Keeping the right from political power is more important than keeping women from rape.

Re:He's right

[turbidostato]

"Though technically it hasn't ever really gone away, as Spain was officially Fascist until 1976, and official Fascist parties have existed in some form throughout Europe ever since Benito Mussolini coined the term."

Well, if the term is so important as to mention who coined it, then Spain was not technically Fascist but Falangist (yes, of course, it's basically the same thing but still...)

On the other hand, one of the short list of things one as Spanish can be proud of nowadays is that despite the crisis and what other European countries are doing, in Spain there's no fascist party worth mentioning (cross fingers).

Re:He's right

[Yoda222]

I don't know where you live, but as far as I know, in Sweden, the police is not a media.

Re:He's right

[PopeRatzo]

On the other hand, one of the short list of things one as Spanish can be proud of nowadays is that despite the crisis and what other European countries are doing, in Spain there's no fascist party worth mentioning (cross fingers).

That's an interesting point. Maybe it's because there are still so many people alive in Spain who can vividly remember fascism. It does appear that the countries where fascism is on the rise are the countries that don't remember what it's really like.

Re:He's right

[grcumb]

Well, I for one am glad that the Swedish media is actively declining to report mass rapes by the Muslim immigrants that the Swedish left has imported.

It was the Swedish media who broke the story, genius. The police were the ones who wouldn't talk about it. Did you even read the fucking article you linked to?

Why did they do it? Well, to avoid giving the Swedish right (apparently they do exist) any proof that their opinions were backed up by facts.

Yeah, opinions that are not borne out by facts are shameful, aren't they? I mean you would know, right?

Re:He's right

[flopsquad]

If Trump ever did become president, we'd likely see worldwide investment in space colonization skyrocket as people desperately clamored to get the hell off this rock.

From an objective scientific point of view, the lunar surface would give humanity a much better chance of survival.

Re:He's right

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that people from groups who have suffered real acts of genocide, would find your trivial use of the word highly offensive.

Re:He's right

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the subject exactly? Because after reading the comment, I see several subject, in random order: the (swedish) government should have less power, the government should have more power (to throw people away), he does not want a racist country, but want to get rid of brown and black, the migrants are never condemned when they do something outside the law, several afghans have been condemned, he does not agree with the tyranny of majority, but when he says he has a (imaginary) majority on the increased/decrease of refugee they should follow this majority. And I don't know his age, but he is one of the founder of the Swedish society, that's impressive. Anyway, he he wants the trash to be deported, I can probably buy him a one way ticket to anywhere.

Re: He's right

[loufoque]

The main reason is that people are unhappy about the immigration policies, but no "normal" party even acknowledges that there is a problem.
I've read that in Germany, Angela Merkel, who let 1 million refugees in her country, even said there is no room in her government to even criticize immigration policy. When you can't even criticize policies, there is something fundamentally fucked up about your government.
Meanwhile women get raped and the police does nothing, leading to citizens organizing themselves as militias.
It's gonna blow up eventually. All those crazy progressive and permissive policies will just lead to more fascism down the line.

Re:He's right

[Jesrad]

Just because a regime is brutal, does not make it fascist. For that you would also need the militarization of institutions (like schools and charities), workers' unions being coopted by the state and taking over management of production, and plenty of xenophobic or racist rethoric to establish a nationalistic "us versus them" view.

Re:He's right

[Jesrad]

The nazis are getting renewed support thanks to the swedish (and to a lesser extent, european) mainstream society turning a blind eye to some of the issues they are at least right to denounce (even if their solutions to those issues are, well, let's keep it civil and stick to 'subpar').

people who are pissed about all the dark-complexioned people invading their lovely field of vision and luring away their women ... they're pissed about not being able to get dates

This right here is part of the problem. If the sane pressure groups don't address the big rape issues in Sweden, they're leaving it to the nazis to rise support with. Dismissing the whole topic derisively is clearly not working.

Re:He's right

[Big Hairy Ian]

I think most of the planet would support sending Trump into space.

What and risk interstellar war?

Re:He's right

[aethelrick]

who mentioned elves, dwarves and halflings?

Re:He's right

[aethelrick]

Why are you so intent on dictating how others should live and who they should be with? Can you not afford others the very courtesy you are demanding? Just get on with your life and stop worrying about these inconsequential things. If the guy next door is black and his wife is white IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Also, where did your ancestors come from? Did they magically arise from the ground right where you live? No, they didn't, your ancestors migrated to where you live, and no-one is telling you to "go back to where you came from" are they? Typically migration is good for economies and gene pools alike, it's the idle lay-abouts that sit at home moaning about how people are taking away their privileges, demanding that the universe give them their due that present the largest burden to society. Migrants are largely risk-taking and adventurous, the less-adventurous ones in their societies are typically still at home (or dead because they didn't move fast enough). These adventurous spirits make excellent small business owners and they build nations with their efforts (look at the US, a nation literally built by immigrants).

Re:He's right

[Goose In Orbit]

Don't give Cameron (more) ideas...!

Re:He's right

[Goose In Orbit]

Would that be the dark-skinned people who have less Neanderthal DNA than their white-skinned brethren?

I do love the fact that the ultra-right (that tend to be white-skinned) are less "pure" human than those they rail against.

Re:He's right

[Goose In Orbit]

(look at the US, a nation literally built by immigrants)

Donald is obviously worried that the new immigrants will do to the old immigrants, what the old immigrants did to the revious population.

Re:He's right

[parkinglot777]

If you at least think a bit, you would understand that reporting the kind of news is 2-edged sword. One side think all of the news should be published and the other think opposite because it could result in worse consequence. It seems that you are in the former group. To me, I am unsure that it is good to do so especially with the current situation with religious now... I may be in the latter group...

Re:He's right

[Coren22]

what the old immigrants did to the revious population.

Do you mean the "Native" Americans that took the land from the Clovis people?

http://news.nationalgeographic...

Re:He's right

[Coren22]

Who do you prefer over Trump?

Hillary broke the law, it is amazing she isn't in jail yet. The newest one is that she took bribes for State Department contracts.
Sanders wants to give away money, without talking about where he will get it.
I can't think of anyone better on the GOP side except maybe Christie who got smeared so heavily that he has been a non starter.

Re:He's right

[parkinglot777]

Only Trump? If Trump is 100% crazy then mainstream politicians like Hillary and Obama are 99.9% crazy. And Trump doesn't seem to take himself too seriously.

If he doesn't take himself too seriously, how could anyone trust him to take a job as President seriously? Keep the joke going?

What's scary about Hillary is that a lot of the policies she advocates are just as nonsensical as Trump's. But the possibility that she might be wrong doesn't even seem to occur to her. Sure, building a wall along the parts of the border with Mexico that are way out in remote parts of the desert would be a waste of taxpayer money. But it would be many orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of money wasted on the Iraq war - that Hillary in all judgement and experience and wisdom thought was such a thoroughly wonderful idea.

Excuse me, do you have short memory or what? Who ordered to invade Iraq in the first place and left with a big mess to be cleaned up as a consequence? Really short memory or rather pick and choose to remember...

Re:He's right

[Yoda222]

Sanders wants to give away money without talking about where he will get it. That's similar to Trump who will construct a wall and makes someone else pay. But if I have to chose between the two possible use of imaginary money, I prefer Sanders' ideas. But isn't promising to spend non existent money the basis of most politicians, nowadays? And I don't know what Sanders would be capable to change (probably not much, as all possible candidates), but seeing republicans fanboy with a devil communist (for them) as president should be fun to see.

Re:He's right

[aliquis]

Among the "lone"-coming "refugees" there's an over 11:1 ratio of men to females.

Among Swedish teens we're hitting 1.2:1 male to female ratio now thanks to the immigration, so among those generations the chance to make a couple will decrease.

Best case scenario the Swedish females would be taught to avoid the immigrant men possibly making them want to go somewhere else because they was alone and slow down the destruction of the Swedish people.

But more relevant just like it's a fact that more people will be raped in Sweden thanks to mass-immigration from rape-cultures the lack of women and partners will likely lead to more problem in Sweden too, as would social-/economical inequality. Segregation of the people and cultures will likely lead to some cultural conflicts and there's always the possibility of some sort of civil-war too.

It doesn't go away just because one doesn't admit it, accept it says "no" or live in a fairy-tale.

Re:He's right

[aliquis]

This right here is part of the problem. If the sane pressure groups don't address the big rape issues in Sweden, they're leaving it to the nazis to rise support with. Dismissing the whole topic derisively is clearly not working.

I'm no socialist.

Call me xenophobic or pro my own people, culture and self-rule or against the genocide of my own people or whatever.

The Swedish government wouldn't admit that there are Swedes and the leftards wouldn't admit that Swedes for some reason had more right to this land and society than someone else and the Swedish government says that we have no native culture, that we are all the result of immigration and that it has always been that way.

Or justice and migration minister said that 600 000 people wanted into EU (~520 million) and likened that with 1 person asking for help and whatever he could come to an island of 1 000 people, which he meant was fine.

The number of asylum-seekers to Sweden year over year:
http://www.migrationsverket.se...

162 000 last year, at most there was 13 000+ / week or a rate of almost 700 000 / year, to a country which had around 9.65 million inhabitants when the year started or an actual rise of 1.7% / year and at a speed of 7% of the population / year when it was the worst speed.

Sweden in 2014 had 10+ times more asylum-seekers / capita than the rest of EU on average, that deserve the highest response against the crazy politics and mass-immigration in EU for all I care, which isn't something Sweden have. In Germany there are large protests and many more attacks on future claimed to be refugees facilities than in Sweden.

In the United States of America people whine about 60 000 Syrians, if USA got the same amount of asylum-seekers are Sweden got / capita in 2015 that would had been 5.4 million in 2015 alone, about 25% of them would had been "lone-coming refugee children" those services would had costed closer to $100 000 / person and of which 11:1 was men.

At the quickest rate of refugees arriving to Sweden the USA 450 000 refugees would had come to USA PER WEEK.

The cost of these well-fare migrants are higher in Sweden than it would be in the US due to the stronger well-fare state and higher taxes.

Back in 2014 35 TIMES MORE REFUGEES came to Sweden than to USA / capita.

The response in eastern Europe is much stronger and they get far less refugees.

Also it's complete bullshit that Sweden would have a strong neo-Nazi movement, there's more or less no neo-Nazi movement in Sweden at all. There's 20+% sympathizers to the party which want to restrict immigration and almost 1/3 of the many sympathizes with them, I think support among immigrants themselves was up like four times for the party in question, that shouldn't be likened with 20+% of the Swedes being neo-Nazis, to begin with it's the only alternative if you want a change but it's all too late anyway and they won't get 50+% support so the decades of no trash-immigration and kicking people out won't happen regardless.

Sweden is flooded with immigrants and it will continue because the ass-holes in charge consider it responsibility to not take responsibility and stop the invasion and destruction of Sweden.

Re:He's right

[aliquis]

There is a very active neo-Nazi movement in Sweden.

I don't know how active it is but it's on the brink of being totally non-existing.

There kinda is no neo-Nazi movement in Sweden at all.

There was in the 80s and 90s but it has been destroyed since then. There's been what may have been a few attacks on "refugee" facilities in Sweden but that's kinda that and they are far-far less than what is being done in Germany. There's been attempts to do Pegida demonstrations in Sweden but those have had like 3 people whereas there's thousands in Germany and Poland.

The flooding of immigrants is worst to Sweden by far but the response and criticism kinda is lower than in the neighbor countries and much weaker than in Germany and east-Europe.

The only thing there is is a 15-20+% opinion support for the Sweden democrats who are the only party which would want to severely cut immigration flows but that doesn't mean that 15-25% of the Swedes are neo-Nazis. It's the only party which isn't completely self-destructive and would do something about the situation.

But personally I would applaud all solutions.

The ridiculing and name-tagging won't get you anywhere.

Re:He's right

[aliquis]

I think that people from groups who have suffered real acts of genocide, would find your trivial use of the word highly offensive.

It is the definition of genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

D isn't really there, but replacing them, but the others are there.

Re:He's right

[aliquis]

the (swedish) government should have less power

Yes, because they are unfit traitors but also because the freedom of the individual are more important than the ideas of the collective.

the government should have more power (to throw people away)

The Swedish people should have all the power over themselves and their land. The immigrants should never had been allowed to or be allowed to become Swedes.

he does not want a racist country

?

but want to get rid of brown and black

I don't necessarily want to destroy the Swedish people and replace us and fill a democracy with other people who will be changing it and take it over.

The Swedish people happen to be white but that's really irrelevant. It's like stealing the land of and replacing the aboriginal people in Australia or the Indians in USA. Those was black and brown and that wasn't ok either. I don't care if it's "racist" to not steal their land and destroy their cultures and replace their people. But it's harder to say that when it happen to non-white people though? Because there's a bias against white people, for the destruction of white peoples lands and for "diversity" in any country which is white, which you indeed could say is racist depending on your view of what's racism.

Was it wrong of the Spaniards to flood and take over south America? But it's right of the Muslims and niggers to flood and take over Sweden? Why is that?

the migrants are never condemned when they do something outside the law, several afghans have been condemned

lol whut? No, I've never said they NEVER are. I'm saying that Swedish authorities consider it impossible to deport criminals and people who aren't granted asylum even with lax Swedish laws on the subject, hence it doesn't happen even if they decide that it should happen. Only 25% of the Asylum-seekers are granted asylum as convention refugees, another 50% are granted it by other reasons, and among those 75% who are granted residency permits more or less everyone has been able to bring their family over even if they have no income to pay for them leading to even more people.

he does not agree with the tyranny of majority, but when he says he has a (imaginary) majority on the increased/decrease of refugee they should follow this majority

Why do you claim it's imaginary? There's opinion research on the subject done regularly and it's always the case.

Why do you lie?

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inri...
24th December 2015:
55% want to accept less "refugees"
19% want to accept more "refugees"
20% neither more or less.

And that's even with our media climate and lies and hidden statistics.

55% is definitely a majority and 55% is more than 19%.
How are you going to change that to mean something else?

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/val2...
7th May 2014:
44% thought Sweden had taken in too many immigrants.
10% thought we had taken in too few immigrants.

How is that imaginary? What are your interpretation? That because the 10% are the ones shouting and screaming the whole time they totally make up 100% of the Swedish people except a few neo-Nazis which are irrelevant?

Why are you posting as AC your fucking coward who don't take responsibility for your bullshit?

One reason to not let the majority flood the country with immigrants anyhow would be that you know what you have and are used to it and is it ok to enforce something else upon someone within that system?

And I don't know his age

36.

he he wants the trash to be deported, I can probably buy him a one way ticket to anywhere.

That don't make me deported or a citizen of some other society.

Re:He's right

[aliquis]

LOL. Another pathetic attempt to shut down debate by being "offended".
White people ARE being genocided, obviously a perpetrator like you is going to keep telling us it isn't happening. We all have eyes, we can all SEE how our countries are bring invaded and destroyed by non-whites.
Non-whites get to keep their own countries. But whites don't.

How fair of you.

Someone being offended should be irrelevant. People should be taught it's irrelevant if they are offended by something. One can be offended by a lot. I'm offended by having my country flooded with immigrants, by the government stating I have no culture, I have no country, that my opinion doesn't matter and is false and they should just be able to don't care about it.

Feminist scum-bags who supposedly are anti-racist and anti-sexist (they want to be viewed that way at-least) are just fine saying "Yet another offended white man!" and supposedly then it doesn't matter that he's offended because he's white and man. But if a woman, a brown person or a Muslim is offended then supposedly it does matter. How isn't that sexist and racist? Why is it a good thing then white men are offended but not when someone else is?

Personally I'm ok with all sorts of people being offended and I don't even make the claim that I'm not racist, I don't care what the fuck people call my opinion, it is what it is regardless. Too me the bad parts is discrimination, slavery, genocide, rape and mistreatment, discussing color or sex in regard of behavior or statistics or whatever I don't see the problem with. I know it's generalizations and different individuals.

In Sweden a common leftard argument would be "there are no mass-immigration", even though Sweden have the most immigration in the whole western world, and that's supposedly a valid argument and one which will catch and destroy any other claim.

I guess they could argue that feminists aren't "anti-men" too or that the replacement of the Swedish people (how can there even be when they deny the very existence of it?) or denial of their culture and their right to the country aren't genocide, anti-democratic, racist and shitty behavior.

In this city, Örebro for anyone who care if you walk up on the city 50% of those you see will seem to be immigrants. How isn't that mass-immigration? My local super-market will also have like 50% non-Swedes* in it. And you try to tell me we don't have many immigrants?

* (yeah, white, that's what we happen to be, deal with it, it's irrelevant, it's not ok to destroy all white people just because they are white and then that supposedly is anti-racist and good, why is it ok to take over and destroy countries of white people but not black and brown people?)

Within my generation Sweden will have gone from no to 1 immigrant / class in school to majority of non-Swedes in the country. How isn't that mass-immigration?

It will completely change Sweden and remove the country from us and destroy the Swedish people.

It is what it is, you could put any brand on it and it doesn't really matter, genocide, not genocide, racist, anti-racist, good, bad, this or that, doesn't matter, it's a fact that the Swedish people are being exchanged and that their country and self-rule are taken from them regardless of what you want to call it.

Fucking traitor government.

If I ruled Sweden they all would be hanged from tree-branches just like in the days of old and been shown as a warning to anyone else who thought this politics was a good idea.

Re:He's right

[k6mfw]

All elected officials that were either against or skeptical were under pressure to support Iraqi invasion, and most went along with that decision. It was made in Oct 2002, one month before elections, and if you voted against the invasion you were flamed and tarnished for being a traitor. Even just ordinary people were under pressure.

Re:He's right

[KGIII]

That's a bit old and the current thinking is that the two groups never actually met - the Clovis people died out before that. See Nova's documentary "Where do we Come From?" documentary for an easy to digest format. That's my understanding of the most recent conclusions. They are, of course, subject to change.

Re:He's right

[parkinglot777]

Yes, but that does not mean the GP can blame the other, who took over the war, on spending regardless whatever reason of initiating the war. Also, Hillary at least admitted the wrong choice; however, the GP mind is blocked by his/her own selected memory as you could see from his reply...

Re:He's right

[lucien86]

You mean the fascists? In the UK we call them the EDF.

I don't see why...

[TWX]

...a person whose principal businesses seem to be geared around fairly short-term returns. Gambling businesses are all about the house making revenue immediately, and his real estate holdings seem to be based on building as big and as gaudy and filling that space as quickly as possible.

The Space Program is not an instant-return kind of thing. It took the better part of a decade, spanning three presidential administrations, before the announced goal of putting a man on the Moon was realized. It took a similar amount of time to work the kinks out of the Shuttle, such that Skylab was lost when needed missions to service it didn't come to fruition.

Even the nature of commercial space now is not a fast process. No commercial launch companies are man-rated yet, and I'd bet that while SpaceX wants to be, they're smart enough to not rush it too fast lest they have a setback-inducing failure that destroys confidence in the company.

Re:I don't see why...

[Rei]

It was a stupid tweet. Trump is on the record making it clear where his priorities are.

The local boy laughed, told the presidential candidate "yeah," and said: "I want to know your opinions on NASA."

Trump wanted to make sure he correctly heard the question, turning to those around him to clarify if the boy was asking about the national space program or the North American Free Trade Agreement. A woman near the boy shouted: "Space!"

"You know, in the old days, it was great," Trump told the boy, along with an audience of more than 600. "Right now, we have bigger problems — you understand that? We've got to fix our potholes. You know, we don't exactly have a lot of money."

One can agree with his sentiment or not (which he's made before), but he's certainly not going to be doing anything "inspirational" with NASA.

Re:I don't see why...

[kamapuaa]

Casinos are extremely expensive to build. Of course they don't re-coup the money almost immediately, or there would be approximately ten thousand times more casinos than there currently are.

Generally speaking, Trump is a property developer, not merely a speculator. He makes long-term investments that will not pay off for the long term. I am NOT a Trump fan or apologist, but get real.

Long-term investments are not a rare thing. They are not punished by the stock market. One technology company after the other is losing money quarter after quarter, yet has a very high market capitalization because investors see a possibility of long-term investment. Amazon, for example, is only now beginning to actually earn a profit after a decade+ of being a hot stock, and even now the market capitalization only makes sense if the markets are looking at long-term growth.

Re:I don't see why...

[Spy Handler]

Trump's casinos have done poorly and he most likely regrets getting involved in the gambling racket. He's done very well in office towers and apartment buildings, however.

Re:I don't see why...

[cavreader]

Trump will be no better or worse than any other President but he would definitely be very entertaining to watch. People tend to think the President of the US has the power to do anything they want but they are very limited on what they can and cannot do. It's a Presidency not a Monarchy. I don't think he has thought out what he is really getting himself into if he wins for two reasons. Number one is he cannot fire Congress if they don't do what he says or dismiss Supreme Court judges when they make a ruling against his wishes . Number two is that on being elected a President is required to put all their financial holdings, bank accounts, and investments into a blind trust for the duration of their term. I don't see how Trump could live with that requirement. He can't run his business empire and the US at the same time for the simple reason that there are not enough hours in the day.

Re:I don't see why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. Shuttering NASA and pushing for private space exploration is the future anyway. It's well past time to get the US government out of space exploration.

Re:I don't see why...

[murdocj]

The next President will appoint 2 to 3 Supreme Court justices. As long as you aren't a woman, an immigrant, need health care, Muslim, poor, middle class, etc, it really doesn't matter who the next President is.

Re:I don't see why...

[turbidostato]

"The Space Program is not an instant-return kind of thing."

Of course it is! For the private companies running the program, of course.

"It took the better part of a decade, spanning three presidential administrations, before the announced goal of putting a man on the Moon was realized."

And a significant part of USA's GDP during that decade... which got funneled into private hands. Of course Trump's friends are longing for those gold days, after all, nobody can be on the defense business.

Re:I don't see why...

[JoeMerchant]

You know, we don't exactly have a lot of money.

Spoken like a true Depression survivor's child... And, if anyone recalls any history at all, how did we manage our way out of the Depression? (Hint: It wasn't by sticking our remaining money in a locked vault.)

You want the potholes fixed? Great idea, let's do that. Hell, let's give infrastructure a boost back up to 3% of the federal budget, from the 2.5% where it's currently at, but not at the expense of shutting NASA down. Pushing NASA back up from 0.5% to 1% of the budget, and education up from 6% to 8%, and energy and environmental up from 3% to 4%, while reducing military spending from 54% to 50% would seem to be a good way to make this country stronger, long term.

Re:I don't see why...

[k6mfw]

Need to be know what businesses that Trump is actually involved with to those businesses that Trump has no involvement but licensed so those businesses can use "Donald Trump" as part of their business name.

Re:I don't see why...

[wonkey_monkey]

but he's certainly not going to be doing anything "inspirational" with NASA.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to infer what a politician will do in future from what he has said in the past. I mean, c'mon.

Re:I don't see why...

[serviscope_minor]

The key is of course to pay people to go out and fix potholes.

I do wonder if this can be done however. Over the years this has morphed in to paying large companies to ostensibly pay people to go out and fix potholes. The money has a nasty habit of disappearing with not many potholes getting filled at all. That turns it from a welfare/jobs program which also fixes infrastructure and boosts the economy into a handout for rich people.

In order to implement such a thing, you first have to fix the rot which would make all the money disappear down a hole with nothing to show for it.

Re:I don't see why...

[khallow]

And, if anyone recalls any history at all, how did we manage our way out of the Depression? (Hint: It wasn't by sticking our remaining money in a locked vault.)

The US didn't manage its way out of the Depression, it muddled its way out. My view is Keynesian spending during recessions is like beating drums during solar eclipses to scare away the giant space snake that's eating the Sun. Since the recession ended, the Keynesian spending is claimed to have always worked. The problem is that the recession would have ended anyway. People don't keep their money in a vault forever.

Hell, let's give infrastructure a boost back up to 3% of the federal budget, from the 2.5% where it's currently at, but not at the expense of shutting NASA down. Pushing NASA back up from 0.5% to 1% of the budget, and education up from 6% to 8%, and energy and environmental up from 3% to 4%, while reducing military spending from 54% to 50% would seem to be a good way to make this country stronger, long term.

What of that spending is going to help the US long term? They could already fix pot holes on 2.5%, it just gets more votes to spend it on creating new infrastructure rather than fixing existing infrastructure. NASA could do vastly more on what it currently spends than it is. Doubling that spending would be throwing good money after bad. Education and environmental spending make things worse. Educational spending is in large part responsible for education being as expensive as it is. And environmental spending chased off a lot of US industry over the past 40 years. Spending more on it will chase off even more.

Finally, military spending is a huge low lying fruit for getting the US into a healthy fiscal position. I'd look at cutting it to 20-25%, maybe less. I notice also you ignore Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, focusing only on discretionary spending. Those programs do absolutely nothing for the US economy even from a Keynesian point of view and are terrible for the purposes they are meant for. And since they're also of the same size roughly as military spending, we can get a lot of benefit out of greatly curbing or eliminating these programs.

Re:I don't see why...

[aethelrick]

The sentiment is great, I agree with spending more on the things you mention and a little as possible on military. But your figures are way off, the US military budget is between 3 and 4 percent of GDB (depending on who's figures you believe) http://www.sipri.org/research/... which is fairly high I suppose (around 1.5 to 3 times higher than other NATO members).

Re:I don't see why...

[aethelrick]

GDP even...

Re:I don't see why...

[JoeMerchant]

Some "Enterprise zones" address this in a weird sort of way, with per-head incentives. If you set up shop in the zone, for each employee who you pay at least $30K/yr (hourly, salary, incentive, whatever, as long as they report $30K+ in the year as income from your enterprise), then the "zone incentive" pays the company $5K, or whatever.

In terms of a pothole filling contract, if the award is for $75M, it could be broken down as $25M for capital equipment and materials, plus a max of $50K/head. To get the last $50M in the contract, at least 1000 people will have to report $50K income tax - divide as you like: $25K over 2000 heads, etc. but, no individual reported taxes greater than $50K will be counted toward reimbursement on that project. So, you could "hire" your entire family of 100 at $50K/head to do nothing and siphon $5M off the top of the contract, but that kind of graft is pretty easy to find in an audit.

Re:I don't see why...

[Tablizer]

how did we manage our way out of the Depression?

War, unfortunately, was the final cure. While gov't infrastructure programs improved the situation (i.e. "stimulus"), things were not going fully back to normal despite two presidents having tried many different things. Nobody felt comfortable making long-term purchases nor long-term investments, creating an economic stalemate.

Some speculate that trying a bit more inflation may have kick-started the economy: it gives people money, and makes it too expensive to save because it declines in value such that people invest it instead in industry. It carries some risk, but so does staying mired in a slump.

As a warning to the future, we still don't really know how to prevent depressions. The quick stimulus probably saved us after the 2007 financial meltdown, but barely.

Re:I don't see why...

[Tablizer]

My view is Keynesian spending during recessions is like beating drums during solar eclipses to scare away the giant space snake that's eating the Sun. Since the recession ended, the Keynesian spending is claimed to have always worked. The problem is that the recession would have ended anyway. People don't keep their money in a vault forever.

Yes they do: buy precious metals. Or spend overseas or on real-estate instead of things that actually turn the economic gears. Some speculate our current slow recovery is caused by making real-estate too lucrative compared to real investments in industries.

And environmental spending chased off a lot of US industry over the past 40 years. Spending more on it will chase off even more.

So we should become a 3rd-world mess to compete with 3rd-world messes? This is what some of us call "race to the bottom". China's pollution is horrid: we shouldn't create 3-eyed babies just to have more jobs. We should tariff their goods unless they improve their pollution situation. (And they should encourage local consumerism rather than be export-dependent, but that's another issue.)

Keynesian economics would work great if we as a country save more during the good times. But politicians haven't shown the discipline: they are not judged on the future, but the here-and-now in elections.

I'm for legislation that forces or encourages better spending. It would be similar to a balanced budget amendment, but allows for relaxation of the rules during slumps. Pay down the debt during up-times as a rainy-day fund, essentially. Bill Clinton is the only recent president who came close to resisting the urge to spend during up-times.

Re:I don't see why...

[JoeMerchant]

Agreed that the "free market" is too poorly constrained to prevent boom-bust cycles with any of the current control mechanisms (and this is not in any way implying that a controlled market would be better) - we don't have a good handle on how to prevent or cure depression, though we've got some good examples of how to start one now, and one thing that seems to be "sure" to lengthen/deepen one is for everybody to clam up and spend as little as humanly possible - though, this was exactly how all 4 of my grandparents (born in the 19-teens) lived their entire lives: moving their guaranteed savings to the accounts that paid the highest interest (reading the paper for hours to find and capitalize on the last 1/8th of a percentage point), never investing in anything that might lose money, driving the cheapest car they can stand (ok, one grandmother was an exception here), turning the A/C off unless company was in the house, basic phone plan, TV antenna - never cable, cheapest food from the market, etc. etc. etc. When everybody lives that way, the economy grows slowly, if at all. But, what's worse, is when everybody lives like the go-go .com days, then gets spooked and switches overnight to severe austerity. I'm not a big fan of debt, and I believe in savings, I just need the rest of the country to get out and spend like the apocalypse is nigh so that I have a good economy to live in ;-)

Re:I don't see why...

[khallow]

Yes they do: buy precious metals. Or spend overseas or on real-estate instead of things that actually turn the economic gears. quote> And the money always comes back because the above process makes things that turn gears more attractive and with higher return than it would otherwise have. It also provides a reward for those who correctly anticipate recessions and expansions.

Some speculate our current slow recovery is caused by making real-estate too lucrative compared to real investments in industries.

Maybe so. I think though that we need to keep in mind the combination of uncertainty from inconsistent economic policy (a key problem with Keynesian spending is that it stops. No one can plan on it for long term.) and manipulation of future interest rates which hides the actual risks of making long term choices (quantitative easing in particular).

Keynesian economics would work great if we as a country save more during the good times. But politicians haven't shown the discipline: they are not judged on the future, but the here-and-now in elections.

This is how "austerity" happens. Enough of this uncontrolled spending and creditors will step in and decide economic policy in their favor. Obviously, I'm even less in favor of this path than I am of proper Keynesian strategy (which at least limits the damage to a more controllable degree).

Re:I don't see why...

[KGIII]

I'm not sure how familiar you are with US politics but I'm pretty sure that you're familiar with what I used to do. In short, I modeled traffic. It's interesting that only a couple of folks have ever noticed the dates that I share. Without being too specific, the sale was finalized right about now in 2008. I don't like to share the total dollar value but, even though we were in the midst of a depression, my company was very highly valued - more so than normal. I suppose you might not be familiar with the verbiage being thrown around? It was about how billions of dollars was going to be spent on "shovel ready jobs" with, specifically, a whole bunch of that money going towards highways. That should be enough for you to put the rest together.

The company that is the now-parent company is a publicly traded company and almost a household name. They do, behind the curtains and mostly as an umbrella, almost nothing but fill government contracts. If one cares to, they can draw some lines between traffic modeling, government contracts, lucrative contracts coming online, and pushing money into a concentrated group of people. Me? I'm all set. I'm also really glad that I got out when I did. I'm not sure that I'd have reached a point where I'd be unable to look at myself in the mirror. *sighs* All sorts of similar companies sprouted up around that time. I've opined on their quality numerous times so I'll skip that. This is basically a long way of saying that you just might have hit the nail on the head and that it's not always obvious while/how it happens.

Re:I don't see why...

[cavreader]

Congress has to approve the President's Supreme Court candidates. There is also quite a few other positions that the President has to submit his nominees for Congressional approval. The President cannot snap his fingers and magically solve these problems. There are enough checks and balances in place to make sure a bad President cannot screw things up to bad.

Obligatory West Wing Clip

[Etherwalk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Endorsing Trump: The official 2016 play for att

[sexconker]

THIS IS WOLF BLITZER AND YOU'RE IN THE SITUATION ROOM

Breaking News: CNN is reporting that billionaire real estate goon Donald Trump has just announced his official endorsement of Donald Trump. We at CNN cannot yet confirm these reports, but we have no standards so we're still reporting them. I repeat: We have unconfirmed reports that Donald Trump has officially endorsed Donald Trump. These reports are coming from CNN. We at CNN will bring you more as the non-story develops.

THIS IS WOLF BLITZER AND YOU'RE IN THE SITUATION ROOM

Sure! And the Antarans to pay for it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nt

It wasn't deleted

[NicknameUnavailable]

The author just happens to be a moron, like most people so virulently opposed to politicians.

Re:It wasn't deleted

[Zero__Kelvin]

It was deleted and then put back up actually.

Just what is a "Inspirational Space Program"

[Crashmarik]

Is it meant to inspire people to burn money ?
Should it inspire people to claim benefits that don't actually exist ?
Should it inspire people to dream there will be a prize for them, when they would have better luck buying power ball tickets ?

Or is it meant to inspire well connected people to siphon even more money from the government ?

Not classy enough.

[TsuruchiBrian]

We will have a huge solid gold space station with a casino and hot chicks that aren't fat. We will make Chinese workers do the job, but the wages will go to American workers.

Re:Not classy enough.

[bobthesungeek76036]

And Mexico will pay for it!!!

Re:Not classy enough.

[TsuruchiBrian]

OK I can see that. Mexico pays the American workers a salary for Chinese workers to do all the work. It will be a tough job to convince Mexico to pay for something they won't get, and to convince China to work without getting paid, but negotiating is what Trump is good at.

Deleted a Tweet?

[TechyImmigrant]

You never really delete a tweet do you?

How very impressive.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

When a guy hawking space-gizmos says we need "an inspirational space program", that's a sign that he isn't even going to try to come up with some real reason for why we need to spend a lot of money buying his stuff; and is instead asserting that doing so will cause conveniently-unquantifiable warm and fuzzy feelings.

How nakedly parasitic.

Hillary too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Could we send him up with his friend Hillary? And any family members they want to bring with them.

It would do humanity a great service.

What kind of projects?

[AHuxley]

Find another German Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., Arthur Rudolph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ?
Build a really expensive use once system that looks great on TV and can keep new funding flowing for each unique mission build?
Go for another spy space plane that has room to interact with or capture other nations satellites?
Go with US Space Command's Vision for 2020 with full spectrum warfighting capabilities?
The reasons to fund have to be sold in a grand way. Work that contractor jingoism.
The Germans granted full protection after 1945 understood how to sell big projects that always needed more funding and more experts for the next important stage.
Ensure funding is interconnected long term over US political dynasties so it cannot be blocked or stopped.
Get the press optics ready to sell funding. Contract for new photogenic uniforms and TV sci fi series like command seats. Sell big on 24/7 look down capability and the vision of controlling the high ground.
Something creative about been over every region of the world all the time. A new network of totally 100% stealth satellites no other nation could even begin thinking about how to looking for. Nothing to stand out against empty space.
A fast moving spy platform that is never expected or is predictable as it can change location without any traditional propulsion limitations.

Re: Making fun of Trump is easy - HAIR! POMP! LOL!

[dnaumov]

You mean the bailout that was repaid back with interest so the taxpayer made a PROFIT on the whole affair?

"Inspirational Space Program" is Obama's priority

[raymorris]

According to NASA chief Charles Bolden, being inspirational, making certain people "feel good", is the "foremost" priority Obama set for NASA . Bolden says:

"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he [Obama] charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good".

Mercurial

[fahrbot-bot]

... Donald Trump, the mercurial businessman who is running for president ...

Or, in comic book form: Calvin, of "... and Hobbes", channeling Donald Trump.

Re:wow...just...wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

God, you're an idiot.

Re:wow...just...wow.

[DNS-and-BIND]

I love how your hate for those who think differently from yourself apparently allows you free reign to use a homophobic slur in the middle of your spittle-flecked rant.

Trump is doing quite well among blacks, thank you very much. If our nation can stand eight years of a far-left divider and fanner of flames like Obama, we can stand a single term of Trump. You know, sometimes the other party DOES get to win. I think you really don't understand this. Especially the part where you call Trump a Republican...the GOP establishment hates his guts just as much as you do. Now there's a wacky situation - both party elites have much more in common with each other than the people. Sad it's come to this.

It's time to start thinking about emigration. Where do you plan to go in January 2017? Canada? France? There's a whole world out there just waiting for you. And when you come back home in January 2021, you probably will have learned quite a lot about America and why people like you are total shitheads for being against it.

Re:Endorsing Trump: The official 2016 play for att

[ScentCone]

I don't understand. How does this explain any missing Malaysian airliners?

Re:Advertising 101.

[laird]

According to people who work for Trump he's not particularly smart - mainly a raging egotist who's pretty good at structuring deals so as to stiff vendors and partners, so business people really don't like dealing with him. Perhaps as a result, or just due to bad judgement on his part, his business hasn't been terribly successful either - he started by his Dad giving him a ton of money, which in total he managed to grow at half the rate of the stock market, making him a dramatically below-average investment.

support sending Trump into space.

[rossdee]

on the B Ark

Re:Making fun of Trump is easy - HAIR! POMP! LOL!

[laird]

Actually in Vermont Sanders was _great_ for business. It turns out that when you break down the anti-competitive barriers put in place by the biggest companies, all other businesses do better, and their innovation and competitiveness is GREAT for the economy.

Want to try again?

We'll Build Cities In Space!

[14erCleaner]

And we'll make the space aliens pay for them!

Re:Endorsing Trump: The official 2016 play for att

[jandersen]

That reminds me of a Beatles song (sorry for going off topic): 'Across the universe' - it's the line 'Thoughts meander like a restless wind
Inside a letter box', which I for years heard as '...like a wrestler's wind in side a letter box'. I kept seeing, with my mind's eye, Hulk Hogan sneaking around in Holywood at night, farting through people's letter boxes. Childish, I know, but there you are ...

Makes sense...

[pruedz]

I bet that if Trump win, a lot of people would not want to live in this planet anymore.

Re:Making fun of Trump is easy - HAIR! POMP! LOL!

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

"“I am supportive of NASA not only because of the excitement of space exploration, but because of all the additional side benefits we receive from research in that area. " - Bernie Sanders

True

[GameboyRMH]

Also, Mussolini could make the trains run on time.

Re:True

[k6mfw]

Excellent observation (maybe double-meaning comment). Though trains did begin to run on time when Mussolini was in power, it was more of result train service was the worst just after WWI. As Italy rebuilt after war, the trains would then run on time regardless who was the leader of Italy.

Re:True

[GameboyRMH]

It's too bad that the metaphor is technically incorrect because it's a very useful one, like the slow-boiled frog.

The point of the metaphor is that terrible leaders ruling with an iron fist can achieve good things that a good leader could not...but that it's not worth all the terrible things they also do. Oddly enough the modern usage is a parody of its original intent - fascist supporters seriously suggested that these trinket achievements unattainable through reasonable democratic leadership justified their ideology.

I think Trump really could do an inspirational space program. He'd probably get the money for it by diverting funds from things the country needs to run, leading to societal collapse, but he could easily have an inspirational space program for a little while before that happens.

Re:Build a wall around it

[Thud457]

When Mars sends its aliens, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending creatures that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing brain slugs. They're bringing crime. They're going to carry off our women. And some, I assume, are good people.

The real problem with Trump is whimsy

[RubberDogBone]

The thing with Trump is that he proudly proclaims he does, and will do if elected, pretty much as he pleases.

So Trump on his own could decide to support a bigger space program OR he could decide we don't need one at all, purely at his whimsy. Now it can be said that the current system of idiots arguing about things and not getting a lot done is not very effective, but it does occasionally come up with things that are good ideas even if they cost money or are otherwise somehow unpalatable.

Trump's approach, and again one he is proud of, is to declare his support or not for things. No appeal. No second opinion. If Trump says we get a bridge to nowhere Alaska, we get one. If Trump says NO to fixing the 405, or food stamps or tax refunds or who knows what, then we don't get them.

He isn't interested in listening to opinions or research. He makes off the cuff decisions. And not all of them are good. And he seems to feel zero remorse for bad choices or mistakes. There is no ownership or accountability or humility, which are traits needed and useful to being President. Trump would make a good king or something, where the throne rules and that's all and that's law. But we deserve better than that. We deserve a president who will make decisions he or she doesn't like, things that make them sick in the stomach or keep them up at night, because somethings those decisions have to be made. We don't need somebody making their choices on whimsy.