Slashdot Mirror
Trump Adds To NASA Budget, Approves Crewed Mission To Mars (nbcnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: President Donald Trump signed a law on Tuesday authorizing funding for a crewed NASA mission to Mars. The new bill (S.442) adds a crewed mission to the red planet as a key NASA objective and authorizes the space agency to direct test human space flight programs that will enable more crewed exploration in deep space. The space agency has $19.5 billion in funding for the 2018 fiscal year, which starts this October. Trump had allocated $19.1 billion for NASA in his budget, which is slightly down from the current year, but still an improvement from the past decade, which saw the end of the space shuttle program. The commander in chief signed the bill surrounded by astronauts and his former Republican rivals, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who both sponsored the bill. Getting to Mars, though, isn't expected to happen during the Trump presidency. NASA has its sights set on getting to the red planet in the 2030s. In the near term, NASA plans to test its Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System rocket, in addition to visiting an asteroid and redirecting a chunk of it into orbit around the moon. Astronauts could later visit the boulder and use the mission to test some of the tools needed for a Mars mission.
inb4 the anonymous poster who rails against space nutters in every space article
The article claims, in its headline, that Trump added to the NASA budget. But when you read the description (which hardly anyone does), it turns out the budget was REDUCED by $400 million (more when you account for inflation). The headline is very disingenuous.
Finally...
Back to what NASA was founded to do.
And $500 Million to carry the gold TRUMP sign in 40 foot high letters with them.
I can't wait to see how the whiny little Trump-hating bitches spin this.
We're going to give NASA less than 3%of what we spend on killing people here on Earth.
If we don't do things incrementally, we'll never get them done. We all learn this in the private sector.
Surprise! The crew is be Hillary Clinton and her daughter. Oddly enough, Bill didn't object...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget
>The space agency has $19.5 billion in funding for the 2018 fiscal year, which starts this October. Trump had allocated $19.1 billion for NASA in his budget, which is slightly down from the current year, but still an improvement from the past decade, which saw the end of the space shuttle program.
Plain lie.
Trump does not yet have the dictator powers implied by the headline. Nor dose anyone consider him the driving vision of the space program.
I think he and the bill sponsors really only declined to try and stop what NASA was doing under Obama
Now we find out if the legislative branch also will keep the Senate Launch System in business.
No one expects them to cancel the SLS either.
But the non-event will be "NEWS".
Orange colored and there's no sign of any intelligence there.
And Mars is just as bad. DrabbadabbaTISH!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Have always been surprised at Trump's support of NASA, whether as magnanimously as he would like us think or not. At least it is not a 30% or more cut like some other agencies. He rejects science, except when it comes to expanding real estate...
I guess the good news here is that we can conclude that the Grays - whom I assume are in total control of every President - do NOT want to eat us! They do not seem to care about our health.
Of course, that doesn't mean that they don't want to turn us into some powdered industrial product. But at least they do not want to eat us!
Science is about science. It is not about money. By giving us more money, he proves he hates us.
not sure if troll or simply off topic
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I mean, look at who is... Oh, nevermind.
Please stop referring to him as "President Bannon". It's a sign of disrespect to popular vote loser Donald Trump.
Aeris Died For Your Sins.
They're going to build a wall on Mars?
He can't remain President long enough to actually do the mission.
Hell, he won't be Pres long enough for hardware designs, much less actually bending metal.
Much less launching anything...
That's NASA's biggest problem these last few decades - no way to stick to anything beyond the term(s) of the current President, so nothing can really be done that takes longer than about five years....
Which is another way of saying "nothing can really be done."
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Not really sure either. Most of those that I know who advocated for Trump during the primaries and the general election did so for the lulz. They wanted to see how screwed up it would get, literally one invoked the, "hold on, I'm making popcorn" trope.
These were not otherwise-unintelligent people either. While I find their particular choice distasteful, the concept of throwing the wrench into the works, especially with the seeming underhandedness of how the DNC and the Clintons worked to ensure her nomination was not without a certain appeal. Unfortunately the particulars in this instance may have made this worse.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
will cancel it, and we'll be right back to were we started.
Trump could make up NASA's budget shortfall by skipping a few weekend getaways to Mar-a-Lago on the taxpayers' dime and maybe having his wife and son move into the White House after the kid gets out of school in five weeks.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Cruz (R-TX) and Rubio (R-FL)
PROK for the PROK GOD!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I don't understand how giving less money to NASA is adding to the budget?
NASA shall go to Mars, just with less money than before without going to Mars? Or do I get this wrong?
Will they have solved the human factors problems? Such as ensuring that the astronauts can still see by the end of the mission, that their life expectancies haven't been greatly reduced by radiation, and that they don't murder each other during the flight?
I don't actually know what the initial proposed budget was. but so-called increases are over an earlier proposed budget level for the same time period.
You see a Mars mission. Trump sees deporting immigrants 4 at a time.
Which one of the two is worse is unknowable in principle, but arguably Trump responds to the public feedback, however clumsily. Clinton didn't, being assured of the future she saw in her head. Trump won and she lost. Therefore it's likely we've got a President who is more receptive to the nuances of the real world. I believe that Clinton would have been more likely to cause a calamity -- as she did in Libya, being dead-set on her vision and deaf to the situation in the field.
I disagree, and here's why.
The Clintons have always responded to public feedback. If anything that's been one of the biggest knocks against them, that they were without principles and could be swayed by opinion polling. Compare her positions in 2008 and 2016 - do you think she really had a change of heart? Or even look at how much she shifted left in response to Sanders' challenge, adopting versions of many of his stances. Lesser/weaker ones to be sure, but it's not like she was unyielding.
Contrast this to Trump. Has he changed on anything of any significance, at all, even when those things have proven unpopular? Even unpopular with his own voters? He won't even do basic things that people are asking of him like releasing his tax returns, or taking actual actions to distance himself from his businesses. Hell, everyone says the Clintons were corrupt, but at least they recognized that there were lines of behavior that they shouldn't be crossing, and had the sense of shame to be embarrassed about it. Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about that - he still owns, and profits fully from, every single thing his businesses are doing, while he's President, meaning that just about anyone (including Foreign Governments) can straight up pay him money (which is grossly in violation of the constitution).
Why does NASA needs so much money to go to mars? After all studios shot movie martian on mars for only $108 million. And that was including catering for the film crew!
The State takes most of what you make each month in tax, and then puts a tiny fraction of it towards things you would do with it, which you could have done anyway if your wealth hadn't been taken from you - and people bounce up and down like things are great.
I hope he signs up to go. Then again, Mars prolly doesn't want him either.
Now now, I think it would be nice if they had a majority Muslim crew. Maybe a billion or two strong.
BYE
(oops NASA forgot supplies, return trip fuel and pointed them at the sun by accident...it's been a while and they are rusty)
No President before Trump has pushed so many bald-faced lies so quickly either. Even if all dialogue prior to Inauguration Day is discounted, he literally got the ball rolling by lying about aspects of his inauguration itself, and has not relented since then, and he's even brought it up multiple times without being prompted to do so.
I was no fan of Clinton either, but I doubt that she would have been so incredibly blatant about her lies. I expect she would have operated more like the Patrician from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, which I would ascribe as being lawful evil to lawful neutral depending on the issue. Trump is more like chaotic evil to chaotic neutral, in the sense the he doesn't even understand how the power of the Presidency works and how those he chooses to associate with directly demonstrate his decision-making skills.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
When did he lie about his inauguration? When did this happen? You need to stop listening to people with a vested interest in tearing down the President and talk to people who were there. The place was packed, it was in no way as empty as the media is trying to pretend. People do notice that the big white things in the photos are tents, right? To keep people warm? There are people INSIDE those tents. That's why it looks empty. If you talk to people who attended in the inauguration, it's clear that the thing was completely packed and there were no large empty spaces. Trump didn't lie about that. Trump is a straight shooter. I know people find it weird when politicians just tell the truth, but Trump does. Deal with it.
From the article " in addition to visiting an asteroid and redirecting a chunk of it into orbit around the moon. Astronauts could later visit the boulder and use the mission to test some of the tools needed for a Mars mission."
Trump wants this mission cut from NASA's budget. This is the ARM mission.
He is cutting NASA's budget for this year (from $19.5B to $19.1B) but is expressing support for a goal that will cost WAY more than that AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE, so paying for it will be somebody else's problem.
Isn't this what Obama did with ObamaCare? It expressed a goal that will cost WAY more than expected AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE, so paying for it will be somebody else's problem?
Trump constantly contradicts himself. http://www.politico.com/magazi...
Have you read my blog lately?
Spacenews reports that SpaceX has been working with NASA to identify potential landing sites on Mars for both its Red Dragon spacecraft starting in 2020 and future human missions. SpaceX, working with scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and elsewhere, had identified several potential landing sites, including one that looks particularly promising - Arcadia Planitia.
Those landing sites are of particular interest, he said, for SpaceX’s long-term vision of establishing a human settlement on Mars, but he said the company wouldn’t rule our sending Red Dragon spacecraft elsewhere on the planet to serve other customers. “We’re quite open to making use of this platform to take various payloads to other locations as well,” he said. “We’re really looking to turn this into a steady cadence, where we’re sending Dragons to Mars on basically every opportunity.”
The Red Dragon spacecraft, he said, could carry about one ton of useful payload to Mars, with options for those payloads to remain in the capsule after landing or be deployed on the surface. “SpaceX is a transportation company,” he said. “We transport cargo to the space station, we deliver payloads to orbit, so we’re very happy to deliver payloads to Mars.”
Fans of the book/movie "The Martian" would be happy if SpaceX does select Arcadia Planitia for their first landing site as that was the landing site of the Ares 3.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
as "we will have a man on Mars in 20 years" for the past 50 years. Now it has been extended to infinity. This only trumps up the Mission To Nowhere as everyone loves to talk about Mars because you can defer costs to build real hardware to some other smucks 20 years into the future. Unlike if Moon is the goal then gotta come up with some real money now to build a lander, transfer stage, etc.
But wait, there are some people talking about the Moon besides Spudis and Wingo. Maybe we get some action before we are all dead of old age:
http://www.spacex.com/news/201...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And Spudis blog has some interesting comments, http://www.spudislunarresource...
mfwright@batnet.com
Too expensive. Muslims will kill each other if given half a chance and a hand sized rock each.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I think there is a great deal of confusion about what "troll" means. Actually, I have concluded that one of the most broken parts of Slashdot moderation is the use of negative moderation that is not part of positive moderation. I'm not saying that negative moderation shouldn't exist, but rather that it should be part of a symmetric relationship and I think Slashdot would be a MUCH better place if the scales were tilted in favor of good behavior rather than bad. (I also believe that the moderation of posts should be reflected in multidimensional karma.)
As it applies to the topic of a "troll", I think a true troll would score negative on the "polite" dimension as well as negative on the "accurate" or "sincere" dimensions. For what little it is worth, I try hard to be accurate and sincere, but too often I can be provoked into tat-for-tat rudeness. (No, I'm not certain what the best dimensions would be, but it's evidently moot since I've seen no recent evidence of Slashdot moving or evolving in any positive direction. I think that lack of movement is ultimately due to the bad financial model.)
As regards the "off topic" category, again, I think it's a negative moderation without positive balance. Perhaps the positive dimension is "relevance"? I also suffer from an excess of connectivity, so apparently I see clear and to-me obvious relationships where other people apparently see nothing. I do NOT believe that #PresidentTweety has any sublime vision for the future of mankind, and only a grubby and delusional vision of what America is, was, or should be. Even if he has delusions of commercial real estate speculation extended to Mars it could not be for his personal benefit. At the same time, I have seen persuasive evidence that Trump sometimes signs things without even understanding what he is signing, so I attempted to make a little joke about acting president Bannon having an ulterior motive. Not sure where to suggest that you start looking for evidence of that relationship between Bannon's philosophies and destruction of the earth, but This Changes Everything is an interesting presentation even though it was written before all of this Donald stuff began.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I don't think Clinton had much of opinion about anything. Hillary was just a robot doing what her staff told her. Given a chance to think for herself her great decision was to setup a email server and use it exclusively as SoS.
> he still owns, and profits fully from, every single thing his businesses are doing, while he's President, meaning that just about anyone (including Foreign Governments) can straight up pay him money (which is grossly in violation of the constitution).
Most of the country's early presidents, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson owned businesses which had customers from other countries. You have an opinion about what the Constitution means, and the people who actually wrote the Constitution disagree, they thought that when they wrote "emoluments of the office" they meant exactly what they said, emoluments - payments for holding the office, as opposed to ordinary buying and selling things at market prices. Most presidents from George Washington to John F Kennedy sold things (business) just as they bought things (shopping). It wasn't until 1965, LBJ, the presidents starting moving their business wealth into a blind trust.
Was there some constitutional amendment in 1965? I don't know of any change in the Constitution that required LBJ to do that, it just looks good politically.
Obama lied all the time, just the press constantly covered for him. The media is still covering for him, somehow there are multiple transcripts and recordings of Trump campaign officials, but you know, there wasn't any wire taps.
Self-contradiction is the lowest form of lying. I rate it at Level 0. You don't even need to check anything to know that at least one side is false. (Interestingly enough, it is logically possible for both sides of a contradiction to be false, but not for both sides to be true.)
Just for reference, Level 1 is counterfactual statements. Trump gets to this level pretty often, though it's hard to be sure because he may then slip in the true facts and create the self-contradiction. However the problem of Level 1 lies is that any fool can check the facts.
Level 2 lies of partial truth are where the lawyers excel. Yes, Hillary went to this well often, but Trump rarely gets this far. Understanding reality and dividing it into pieces takes a lot of work and some skill and the Donald lacks what it takes. Best he can do here is stay on his teleprompter as scripted by lawyers.
Level 3 is the domain of the propagandists. My current generalized description is "framing" for this the techniques at this level. In Heinlein's original formulation, it involved presenting the truth in a way that causes it to be rejected. Today's so-called Republicans are especially fond of the related technique of redefinition of terms, such as redefining "liberal" to mean "socialist" which has already been redefined as "dictatorial gawdless communist". Push polling is an impressive technique, closely related to election fraud by selecting voters before the voters can select the politicians (either through gerrymandering or selective disenfranchisement). People like Karl Rove and Steve Bannon live and breath at this level, but #PresidentTweety remains blissfully unaware.
So much for the reference section, eh? Now to bring it back to the ACTUAL topic at hand, which is supposed to be why Trump signed some sort of pledge to send men to Mars,
I think I have to dismiss this as a Level 2 lie. The part that is real is that there are many people who have visions of a glorious future for mankind, including expansion to other planets. However the missing part of reality is that our civilization may destroy this planet to the point where we lack the resources to sustain any sort of advanced civilization, let along possess the YUGE surpluses that would be required to colonize Mars.
No, I'm not a Luddite. I personally like technology and even agree that the long term trend has been upwards. However I think the oscillations are becoming too extreme and we are poised on the brink of a major downswing...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
*sigh* I still hate typos, and they still slip through Preview too often. *sigh*
s/this the techniques/the techniques/
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
But but but the Atlanta Falcons scored more points in the first three quarters, the Falcons should be the Superbowl champs.
I'm trying to remember if I ever got to the point of calling Dubya anything else. Maybe my problem is that I can't respect the office apart from the occupant?
I wish you would offer a more constructive alternative, however. Perhaps Bannon's title should be "Acting President" or "De Facto President"? Then again, I'm still hoping that Pence assumes the first title via the 25th. That seems to our only hope for an escape to a future in which a Mars colony might be part of mankind's future. Bad as Pence would be, I don't think he's really that much of a game changer, whereas Trump tends to break everything he touches beyond the point of repair... Pence may delay us, but Trump may break center field (of civilization) so badly that no one can play it.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
LOL. No. Just 'No'.
The Republicans made up so much crap about Obama it was unbelievable. I remember being told by a few of my far right friends that it WOULD MOST DEFINITELY come down to a fight from house to house throughout the USA against Muslims because Obama would open the flood gates and they would be grabbing women and murdering men. Current peaceful neighborhoods would be broken by the tanks and the fighter planes having to hold off the terrorists. ...
Fast forward today those same friends say... "Yep. We were right about everything." LOL. You guys were right about exactly jack shit.
You guys are the ones who need to stop making stuff up.
That isn't to say that Obama is totally honest. I'm 100% confident he isn't. But we're talking about two whole different levels of dishonesty.
It's like you murder someone and then when someone points out how that is wrong, you point out how someone else shoplifted. It's stupid and it's ridiculous.
I apparently missed where the Falcons got declared Superbowl champs by being several points down at the end of the game but being declared the winner by an arcane system that values points scored in the last quarter at several times the value of points scored in the other quarters - an arcane system created because the Founding Fathers of American Football didn't trust referees.
But honestly I don't say it to complain about your crazy rules. I say it because I think it's hilarious how much it ticks him off that a majority of Americans who voted didn't vote for him, to the degree that he went into full Alex Jones Conspiracy mode trying to find some reason why he didn't actually lose the popular vote ;) I've never before seen such a fragile snowflake in charge of a major power. The not being able to get over the fact that his inauguration crowd was so much smaller than Obama's was the funniest part, to the point of ordering the parks service to try to find more pictures to try to prove that it wasn't. "Dude: Let It Go Seriously." It's like saying "We won the football match, but they didn't declare me MVP, it's a conspiracy!" Dude, you won, what the hell are you complaining about? Go put a pen in your tiny hand and sign all those bills you've been wanting to sign and indulge in the moment. How can you be complaining about winning? How on earth is your victory walk an angry time? Yeah, a lot of people don't like you. Golly gee wilickers, I can't figure out why! Toughen up, buttercup, you're the f'ing president.
Aeris Died For Your Sins.
Yes, it does. It inspires a level of confidence. Lying about doing is another story.
I'm waiting for some foreign leader to decide to out Trump. Probably after some major misstep, but maybe during the next election season.
I'm normally all for a space program, but I can't support a plan based on inflating Trump's already massive ego. Just... no.
This is nonsense. Trump is a populous president. Like him or hate him that is his thing. His thing is turning the will of his base into reality.
Clinton has evolved on some minor issues, but her thing is being establishment which brings with it some internalized power. She does not have to agree with the public, she does not have to do what they want. Do you think the public actually wanted a war with Russia? No, that was just the politicians.
If Trump had been a politician for any amount of time we would of seen that as well, his base simply has not changed any of their opinions. Their were multiple times throughout the run where he tried changing his message and went back because of the feedback. That was actually one of the most common insults used on him throughout the early and middle of the race, that his policies changed every time you spoke to him.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
There becomes a difference between selling some products from a farm or a brewery and buying-into overseas businesses to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars. Buying/selling products does not necessarily mean partnerships, but foreign business stakes do.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
There's a certain up-front honesty in Trump's foibles that the Clintons have always lacked.
Were Bill's speeches after leaving office really worth that much? The elites hadn't heard his views during office? Funding the Clinton foundation is better than helping an existing charity?
If Hillary had owned up to the email screw-up and sincerely asked for forgiveness, I know many people who would have voted for her but didn't. Trump had equally bad things on his record, but he usually confessed to them and tried to move on. He came off as boorish but honest.
Americans are usually quick to forgive politicians. We don't like when they openly try to deceive us.
I'm glad Trump won. The Dems were resting on their laurels. People were willing to turn a blind eye on backroom business. With Trump, people are waking up. Maybe rudely, but nonetheless. The opposition is having their make or break moment.
Cleaning an open wound hurts.
> to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars
George Washington had a half BILLION dollars (expressed in today's dollars, of course). The very same people who *wrote* the Constitution supported Washington for president, and didn't see any Constitutional issue.
One commentator at the time did see it as a *political* liability. Most people agree it is better public relations to divest, which is why most recent presidents have done so.
I don't know if Trump's business ventures will turn out to be a significant problem or not. I hope not, of course. Understanding a bit of his personality, he's always focused on the biggest, most grandiose thing. Running the United States is far grander than naming royalties on a hotel, so based on his personality I don't think he gives a shit about a hotel right now - he's running the whole COUNTRY and he's likely trying to be the most significant president in recent history. A little money is no longer an issue - he could lose half his money and still be a multi-billionaire. For him, it's about doing something HUGE, doing things that will be in high history books.
It would certainly look better if he sold off all of his businesses. I've sold two businesses, both simple, very small companies. One took three months to sell, the other took two years. I would guesstimate that given the complexity of some of Trump's hundreds of business relationships, it would take perhaps three or four years to get most of them sold off. That's an issue. I don't know that there is a particularly good solution now that he's president. I voted against him because I didn't think he should be president, but anyway now he's president and he has these business interests that aren't going to vanish - just as the early presidents did. It's certainly an optics problem. It's not a Constitutional problem, according to the people who wrote the Constitution.
Boy are you in for a shock! Or are you joking?
Every second day in Afganistan, Syria and Iraq appears to be a more significant calamity when you remove the now outdated political namecalling.
*sigh* I still hate typos, and they still slip through Preview too often. *sigh*
I prefer to see the article subject as a typo - this sounds better:
Trump Approves Crude Mission to Mars - "Grab it by the Olympus Mons" he tweets.
Whoa horse. I agree that your not a luddite. Worse that that, your stupid. Crawl back under your rock and quit spouting shit. Your full of it. If you had the shit beat out of you, there wouldn't be anything left. Stop making the luddites look good.
his trips to Mar-a-Lago are a drop in the bucket next to the rest of the insanity he's proposing (like the wall, or the crazy expansion of the military). Focus on the stuff that matters. Otherwise you're just falling into the trap that is the non-stop stream of distractions he presents...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In the words of George Friedman formerly of Stratfor, Trump saw reality clearly enough to achieve what others thought was impossible. If that's not being receptive to the nuances of the real world, I don't know what is.
Self-contradiction is the lowest form of lying. I rate it at Level 0. You don't even need to check anything to know that at least one side is false. (Interestingly enough, it is logically possible for both sides of a contradiction to be false, but not for both sides to be true.)
The dress is blue.
The dress is white.
A contradiction! So clearly one or both are false. Yet color is sensory-data. There is no such thing as blue or white in itself, merely the experience of light in which we designate the names blue or white. One can experience seeing blue, and experience seeing white all in relation to the same object. Thus both statements are contradictory and factual.
That is enough counter evidence to make the rest of your rant meaningless.
Strafor? The self declared "shadow intelligence agency" who not only got easily and spectacularly hacked but in reality were nothing but a clipping service with less resources than a small state daily newspaper? You yourself as a semi-anonymous poster have far more credibility than Stratfor because you do not have the poor reputation that they have.
So I not only very strongly disagree with that "Trump saw reality clearly enough to achieve what others thought was impossible" - I think you can do far better than George Friedman of that overhyped small clipping service yourself. Trump has a very long track record of being tripped up by reality which is why he had so much trouble getting funding from US banks.
"somehow there are multiple transcripts and recordings of Trump campaign officials, but you know, there wasn't any wire taps." That's a dangerous level of stupidity you're in possession of.
Funding is up. Perhaps the article was not well-worded, but for sure, by some, it was poorly read. The NASA budget was 19.3 billion for 2017, 19.5 billion for 2018. Trump was originally going to go with 19.1 billion but that was bumped up to the 19.5. Seems some folks just need to be sarcastic, and will twist the truth to do it. Doesn't it ever get old?
Is it really better if a politician is more sly about their lies? The silver lining in our case right now is that the press won't let the Trump's rest for second. The down-side is that HRC/BC could basically do all the same stuff and never get a word of real criticism from them.
We deserve Trump, because we can't do politics rationally - he (and the Clintons and our press) are the natural result. Basically... we're doomed.
He wouldn't otherwise if a few Indian women didn't send a rocket to Mars for ~$70 million. Too bad they can't work at NASA. We'll have to wait for another WWII scientist exchange before we get any real brains over here.
Are you talking about the press tents? Those weren't full of spectators. Also, the two big ones in the back obviously had no view of the proceedings as they were blocked by the ones in front. Why would spectators go there just to watch it on TV inside a tent? Also, even if the tents actually were packed with people at three times the density of the thickest parts of the visible crowd, it still would not have been the biggest inaugural crowd. The President and his yes-men are ridiculously bad liars and you look like a fool defending their lies.
Or alternately, maybe there's a whooshing noise over my head right now and you were being ironic.
At least you didn't complain about the 2nd typo I noticed.
I do like your suggestion, but even better if you could have worked "oil" in there somewhere.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
There were clearly a lot of disaffected people who fell for trump's "take a chance... how much worse could it be" line. And now they are finding out EXACTLY how much worse it gets.
Of course he'll absolve all connection with them before they open apart from the complimentary Art of the Deal vidcom breakfasts.
(Interestingly enough, it is logically possible for both sides of a contradiction to be false, but not for both sides to be true.)
Seems you are unaware of the existence of paraconsistent logic.
/. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
I dont think you realize that nearly all his supporters think hes doing a good job. Just like Obama supporters thought he was doing a good job.
Step out of your echo chamber from time to time and measure the pulse of the nation.
Most of those that I know who advocated for Trump during the primaries and the general election did so for the lulz.
Misread that as Iuz. Which, I guess, isn't much farther fetched than what did happen.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Why would he not be blatant about his lies? We have had almost everybody hear lying about a lot of things and nothing came of it once they where caught.
I steal a cookie. Mom askes if I did and I lie. Nothing happens.
I steal another one and mom sees it and asks and I lie. Nothing happens.
I take another one and my mom sees it and I tell her while looking at the video recording that I did not and nothing happens.
I could just take the cookie and say that I did and nothing happens.
As long as there are no consequences, there is no motivation to alter what I am doing.
I might start telling the truth instead of lying, because it is easier and I would still take the cookies. Not because it is the right thing to do.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
As an Indiana resident, I'm glad Pence was selected as VP so that we are rid of him. I know plenty independents and non-conservative Republicans that do not disagree with the sentiment.
Ooh I like that... *laugh*
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
But don't you dare to confiscate my money to do it...
Your attitude is exactly what's wrong these days. "Pay for what I want, but don't pay for what I don't want." Here's a tip, it's not all about you, and if you want things you need to capitulate to what others want too.
Otherwise why don't you go move to Somalia? They don't collect taxes there. That sounds like the society that you deserve.
<sarcasm>
Your attitude is exactly what's wrong these days. "Pay for what I want even if I have to tax you at 100%." Here's a tip, it's not all about you.
Otherwise why don't you go move to North Korea? The government owns everything. That sounds like the society that you deserve.
</sarcasm>
Can we please dispense with this reductio ad absurdum. The current U.S. budget deficit is over $400 billion. The U.S. national debt is over $18 trillion. Wanting to bring both under control while not wanting to be taxed at over 50% doesn't imply that one wants to live in Somalia. In fact, just about the opposite is true.
Yep. As I said: a mission creep. Government looking, what else it can do...
The rules are simple. If (what seems like) a problem:
then the government must not touch it.
For the government to violate this principle is tyranny — taxpayer's money is confiscated to pay for things, he would not have paid for voluntarily.
And, like all other tyrannies, it is also inefficient. Your own example of public education is an ongoing disaster: per-pupil costs of public schools have quadrupled since the 1960-ies (inflation-adjusted), but 70% of the 8th-graders still can not be said to be "proficient" in reading.
Space-exploration is fascinating — leave it to Musk, Bezos, and Branson. They spend their own monies on it...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
> That's even worse.
> Ambition and egotism are deadly dangerous things.
It'll be significant, for good or bad (probably both).
Keep in mind ALL presidents think that a) they should be president and b) the voters will recognize that. So a huge ego is the number one defining character trait of someone who runs for President. The second happens to be loyalty.
Trump will do things big, compared to other presidents. He'll do something good in a big a way and something bad in a big way.
Clipping service? In September of 2015 when no one thought Bernie or Trump had any chance George Friedman predicted the rise of both: "The Crisis of the Well-Crafted Candidate" -- boy did that title capture the fate of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and eventually Hillary Clinton.
https://www.stratfor.com/weekl...
Being able to see the future that others can't is a sign of understanding reality better than others.
This is nonsense. Trump is a populous president.
This explains a lot. It certainly looks like he's got a fair few people inside him. Probably from Holland.
Yeah, and the next sentence explains that figure as: "These losses included $18 billion in medical and mental health care spending, $87 billion in other tangible costs, and $345 billion in pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life."
Different ways to count it can result in vastly different numbers — depending on what one wishes to demonstrate, ha-ha... The point remains, though, the cost of crime, however you count it, is still below the "commie socialist programs" that serviscope_minor attempted to justify.
Of course, it is not! Moreover, I argue, that it is not about reducing crime at all. It is about genuine compassion for some and the ability to spread the wealth around for others. That "spreading" of the wealth of captive taxpayers is pure unadulterated tyranny, of course, and the folks advocating it usually have a vast conflict of interest.
The overhead of charities ranges from 15% to as much as 70% — with government's operations being on the greater side of it. It is an incredibly lucrative and powerful position to be in control of spending even $1 billion, even if a mere $150 million of it are yours to dispense on the "overhead". With $800 billion per year you can find words, sponsor poems, finance movies and other artworks, and even find a smooth talking nincompoop, who will sincerely protect your trough, while denouncing opponents as greedy and egoistic bastards...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It'll be significant, for good or bad (probably both).
The latter, yes, the former? I honestly don't think Trump could manage that even by chance.
Keep in mind ALL presidents think that a) they should be president and b) the voters will recognize that. So a huge ego is the number one defining character trait of someone who runs for President. The second happens to be loyalty.
Nope, and nope. Even ignoring the people who were VP to President, some of whom resented it, Trump doesn't have loyalty, he demands devotion, a far more nefarious sentiment. I will grant he has an overinflated value to himself, but I perceive that as a small ego, not a large one. However, that is because my conceptual picture is different from yours.
Trump will do things big, compared to other presidents. He'll do something good in a big a way and something bad in a big way.
No, Trump will claim the smallest thing is big, huge, good, essential, and entirely his own work, and downplay any terrible results. His reaction to losing the popular vote, the Central Park 5, and more, tells us that.
Not under that label (though I have studied some related material), but more importantly, you failed to establish any relevancy. Also, not even a nod to the original topic. Perhaps you want to suggest that logic will work differently on Mars?
Seems to me that you must be unaware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Without checking the references I am aware that around 1931 he proved that no logical system of sufficient complexity can actually capture the notion of "truth". Gross oversimplification, but I'd recommend Godel, Escher, Bach if you're sincerely interested in the topic. Or even Godel's original paper.
Oh yeah. The punchline. You can fix the system by extending it. Unfortunately, every new extension is merely broken in a new way.
My point was that this Mars project is a form of political lie. Therefore the ontology of lies was relevant to describing what sort of lie it was.
Guessing wildly, but perhaps your point was some sort of knee-jerk defense of Herr #PresidentTweety. If so, then this recent video on do-it-yourself brainwashing is relevant, but it won't help you (because you are too busy brainwashing yourself): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
So essentially, they'd do the same, but one would have better grammar?
And now they are finding out EXACTLY how much worse it gets
You seem to like to say that, but you seem to do so with out citing any evidence. So I'm going to come out and ask you to cite your sources. Please show us how Trump supporters are "finding out EXACTLY" how much worse it can get.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Then again, I'm still hoping that Pence assumes the first title via the 25th.
You should be careful what you wish for. Before you state something like this you should really go research Pence before you wish him as president. I actually can't help but wonder at the people who hate Trump so much they want to see him impeached.
The things people "think" Trump will do that scare the crap out of them, Pence will do. Pence has stated he will set back gay and women rights. At least Trump has stated he has no issues to this. Even if these where Trumps stated goals, he doesn't have the support base in Congress to pull it off.
Pence does. He is a career politician. He has the contacts and the smarts to pull it off if he is set in office. It is far better to stumble through a Trump presidency and hope he is a mediocre one time president than to have Pence in there.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
could someone please explain to me why we're not putting a permanent base on the moon first?
Have you seen any news in the last two months?
Yes. I have been watching the news. Both side, liberal and conservative outlets. I've also watched Wallstreet, several socialist media sites, and cpan for raw input. Virtually every indicator says we are doing fine if not getting better.
Now this may not be any of Trumps doing and just something leftover from the Obama administration. But put it simply the gloom and doom you and people like you, have been predicting since November simply isn't happening.
So again, if its so bad, please site your sources.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
They are no more original than Slashdot and are in the same sort of business of collating information from other places.
No.
Others saw the future and they relayed the message. Your local newspaper would have more employees than the 100 that Stratfor reported as their peak staffing level.
I'm certainly not denying that Pence is terrible, but I believe he is terrible within normal bounds of awfulness. I even agree that his goals are egregious, but I think he is basically not that competent. In comparison, I think Trump is much less competent, but his damage potential is much higher because he can be played so easily. I'm not so much in favor of removing the Donald as in dis-empowering Bannon.
As regards Mars and the original topic, I'm not sure if Pence believes in the existence of Mars. What does his current Bible say on the topic? Pretty sure his first nutty religion believes in Mars, but much less certain about his even nuttier second choice.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Well, one source would be trump's approval rating, which is going down quite steadily. Obviously people who voted for trump because he's such a "straight talker" are being turned off by the constant stream of lies, lies that are incredibly obvious. If you've got even a remotely open mind, the question has to occur to you: if he's doing such obvious, easy to catch lies, what else is he lying about?
To keep the aliens out...
Please document the lies that he has made and where you have your evidence from. So far all I have seen is a bunch of unfounded innuendos. I don't believe for a moment that Obama wiretapped his ass. But Trump might believe that so it doesn't make it a lie. It just makes him wrong.
So, again, site your sources. So far all you have tossed out is a bunch of rumors and options that can vary as the wind blows. I'm not asking to much from you am I? I'm just asking where you got your information from, specifically.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
You are assuming far too much about me or about what I intend.
I have read GEB (did all the exercises/puzzles in it too) and Goedel's paper, and I do not in any way support or defend Trump/Putin/Erdogan/Duterte.
My remark was on logic and nothing else.
/. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
I don't believe for a moment that Obama wiretapped his ass
Well now, seems I might be wrong about something.
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/22/521133929/house-intel-chair-trump-aides-swept-up-in-legal-u-s-surveillance/
The chairman's revelations served to partly vindicate Trump's March 4 claim on Twitter about being incredulous that President Obama had sunk to "a new low" by ordering a wiretap of his phones before the election.
I find that part of the story very interesting. Also facts that seem to point at contacts with in Russa to the Trump campaign. Seems this pig might have caught the scent of a truffle. I say we sit back and see how this plays out.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Well, one source would be trump's approval rating, which is going down quite steadily.
Approval ratings mean squat. Congress has a 10% approval rating and a 97% reelection rate. The real approval ratings are only found in the election results. Everything else is tabloid media hype
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Yeah, caught gabbling with foreigners suspected of malfeasance, uh-oh.
too often I can be provoked into tat-for-tat rudeness.
Actually, too often, you are the one to provoke the rudeness in the most puerile condescending fashion when faced with any disagreement.
For instance:
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You're welcome to cite some of those sources that said the same thing before Sep 2015. (Let's ignore for the moment that knowing what to "clip" that ends up being true when 98% of the all sources claim the opposite is quite a skill in itself.)
This is nonsense. Trump is a populous president. Like him or hate him that is his thing. His thing is turning the will of his base into reality.
No, there's but one of him. :D
From this thread's lede: ...visiting an asteroid and redirecting a chunk of it into orbit around the moon.
_I_ worry about that. A massive object, a long distance, and gravity may not agree with what you want to do...
Astronauts could later visit the boulder and use the mission to test some of the tools needed for a Mars mission.
WHY can't they use the good 'ol stable MOON to do their testing? Half the gravity and airless, yeah; but still closer to Mars than a rock from nowhere.
Z^1
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Hmm... Acknowledged. Then perhaps I should have explicitly restricted my comment to so-called classical logic?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Probably my bad for being pedantic on logic in a discussion about politics - but this is Slashdot after all.
Cheers!
/. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
...Z^1
Thank you... as always
How wude!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1/ A large number of very vocal Bernie supporters.
2/ A very large number of Trump supporters.
3/ Any media outlet that reported what those supporters said, among reporting other things. Strafor would have clipped those articles.
4/ Fox news and the Murdoch press in general who were pushing for Trump early on.
Even the London (UK) Times and "The Australian" were reporting on Trump and Sanders in mid 2015.
Ya just aren't gettin' any, are ya?
I rest my case. :-)
The largest international press corporation on the planet not enough for you? You have no case. Strafor had plenty of places to clip from at the time.
I really don't get why you are so enamored of a small company that appeared to be no good at anything other than self promotion. They made a massive fuss about their security but then got easily and spectacularly hacked.