And give credit where credit is due. He's made progress with N. Korea. There's a CHANCE he won't bungle it. I think the guy's just a bully and he managed to bully Kim into action. A nuclear game of chicken. The sort of game where you only really have to worry if the other guy is completely crazy. Which oh look, we've got that guy. If reunification happens, it's going to be WEIRD. There will be statues of Trump as a man of peace.
No, I don't think so. You seem to be ignoring a lot of facts, like the one where an earth quake likely heavily damaged the nuclear testing site that Kim Jong Un, has promised to decommission. I don't know what North Korea has planned, but I have serious concerns that Trump and by extension America, is the mark in North Korea's shell game. The "Trump out-crazied North Korea by tweeting" argument is just amazingly unconvincing.
Gerrymandering usually makes most (more than 95%) of the general elections a foregone conclusion, so it's only the nomination ballots that actually have any competition.
There *are* people who want to see America fail and are upset Trump is taking a sharp pro-America approach.
Actually judging from comments on Slashdot before and after the election, there *are* people who want to see America fail and are delighted that Trump is taking a moronic pro-America approach. See the thing I remember quite clearly was that all the people I saw who wrote they explicitly wanted America to burn also declared that they were voting for Trump...
You need to think a little more before replying, because he's right "My country right or wrong" is a terrible and ignorant motto. You're also right that "My country, right or wrong; if right to be kept right, if wrong, to be put right" isn't a terrible motto. However, far too many people seem to forget the second half.
They don't care about any of that, because all they want is someone who will beat The Evil Democrats. Everything else, including party and country is secondary to winning against the hated enemy. Sieg uber alles.
While thousands of dollars on customized luxury pens and journals is not a single large expense it's part of an overall pattern of wasted of government money in the current administration. I don't think it's necessary for hundreds of dollars in gifts to be handed out to foreign environmental policy heads. This is something the Republicans supposedly care about more than Democrats, though Republicans' actions seem to speak differently while in office.
Well, the simple fact seems to be that Republicans no longer care about anything except beating the Democrats. It's sad to see such a political party with such a grand history reduced to such a sorry state.
They're mirroring the Democrats then, because they've totally exited the building. They've recently moved more far left than the republicans have moved far right.
Cue the name calling and insults, but here are the simple facts:
Most likely people call you names because they think your "simple facts" are just partisan lies.
* 25 years ago or less, all the leading democrats declared illegal immigration was bad and needed to stop; you can find the videos of Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama stating this all over the 'net; now many democrats are openly calling for "open borders" and the abolishment of ICE, and those numbers are growing.
I think it's telling that you didn't list any names when you claimed "many democrats(sic)" where calling for open borders. When I looked for Democrats who were calling for open borders, do you know what I found? Republicans who say Democrats are calling for open borders. Maybe it's just the skeptic in me talking, but I'm not inclined to take the word of Republican politicians and pundits on what the other party actually wants.
* Democratic leaders were generally against gay marriage until about 8 - 10 years ago (again, videos are out there), now it's simply evil to suggest otherwise.
You know, that's not actually a left wing position, there are right wing parties in other countries that realized that treating other people as their equals works better than constantly trying to limit who qualifies as fully human. Also, treating other humans as less than human is pretty much the definition of evil.
All democrats just 10 years ago would have loudly denounced socialism, and feigned offense at the very accusation; today it's "the new face of the party".
So given your statement, I understand that you weren't old enough to vote 10 years ago.
Let's look at what is probably the most telling and meaningful metric of public social attitude: television. Things on television today are far, far, far more risque than they were 20 years ago or more; subjects once taboo are now commonplace, and the language restrictions are all but gone. Society as a whole has moved left. From that perspective, it might seem as the Right is moving more right but in actuality they're pretty much standing still for the most part. After all, it's in the name, conservatism.. meaning resistant to change.
No, just no. Your opinions are just too ridiculous. In fact, both the Democrats and the Republicans have moved to the right over the last 20 years. You could figure that out if you wanted to by looking at what policy positions they supported, but you'd rather cherry pick a few things that you think support your desired answer like a clueless child would. When you've conducted (or at least read) some longitudinal studies that show whether and if so what shift in the policies supported by each political party has taken place, then you can come back and try to pretend that you're an adult again.
Oh, I agree with you. I just wanted to add the point that Trump basically doesn't know the difference between a good deal and a bad deal. He has only a limited understanding of "good for me" deals.
Quite a few of the deals that Trump actually made for himself are also a bad deal for Trump... As evidence by his lifelong history of breaking contracts because he didn't want to honour them.
Are we really so detached from reality that praise is given in the present for accomplishing a possible and unlikely future event? Remember when India claimed they were making a tablet for $20 or when they said they would be on the moon by a few years ago without any external help?
Have you looked at the American government recently? Even just having a plan to do something reasonably achievable that's not inherently evil does seem like a vast improvement over the current American government...
I'm sorry this is just wrong... Trump was trying to distract people from the child abuse that he ordered in name of border security because no one believed his claims that he had to do it because it was the law, or his next claim that the Democrats made him do it, or his final claim that Obama was so much worse than he was, so he finally had to switch to "look at the shiny space marines!" so his followers could continue ignoring his heartless incompetence.
I'm only correcting you because It's important to know what specifically Trump is trying to distract people from.
Because the people who can fire Trump are afraid of offending the people who vote for them. Specifically they refuse to cancel him because they're afraid that their voters will cancel them immediately afterwards (by voting for someone else in the primaries). This is fallout from gerrymandering and partisan propaganda being so successful that they fear primary challenges far more than general elections.
You know, if I had been me who was planning to make sure that Trump didn't win the election, I would have released that information before the election when it could actually influence people's votes, but maybe I'm not as smart as the masterminds behind this conspiracy that you claim exists...
Neither liberals nor conservatives approve of how Comey handled that investigation...
Really? Most of the liberals I know are thrilled with the investigation because it ended up with the results they wanted. Never mind the fact that the investigation was very badly mishandled and that he had no business deciding that nobody would be willing to prosecute, it ended up with Hillary safe, and that's all they care about.
See what this comment tells me is that you don't actually know any liberals...
The classified is actually a big deal. People do get charged and prosecuted and even convicted of it. A one time incident no, but multiple instances including TOP SECRET (at least eight instances according to Comey's briefing in July 2016) does get prosecuted. A one time event is a slap on the wrist a second or even a third time the same, 100+ instances is a pattern of willful criminal negligence that does get prosecuted.
Honestly, you only wish that things actually worked that way. You're projecting fantasies of perfection onto imperfect people.
You know if boggles the mind of liberals that you care about a handful of emails out of thousands sent over 4 years that contained bits of classified information, and you don't care that the actual President of the United States ordered illegal hush money paid and threats delivered to his former mistresses to keep them from speaking out during an election, then lied about the payments, and then lied about the affairs.
You should be self-aware enough to recognize that if we swapped the Democrat and Republican in this scenario you'd be ever more outraged about the reverse situation. I doubt the liberals would still care about the emails, though. I'm basing that on the fact that liberals largely didn't care that much when Bush and Cheney were using a private email system to avoid presidential records requirements, but conservatives sure as hell cared about the President's sexual morality when Clinton was in office.
No, I'm not going to play your childish games. Go educate yourself, read at least an introductory book on philosophy and when you have some iota of knowledge relevant to the discussion maybe you won't be a complete waste of time and space.
wrong, article is equivalent of saying 50 +/- 50 soldiers are coming.
The article says 1330 to 4110.
Why make up numbers when they're right there?
You should be able to tell that since 2720 is larger than 1390 that zero can not fall into the range of 2720 +/- 1390.
Since this is basic addition and subtraction, it's practically inconceivable that you screwed it up instead of simply choosing to lie to people. Of course, if you did screw it up, then you are so incompetent that you should think long and hard about whether you should post anything anywhere ever again. It might be for the best if you simply destroyed your keyboard, so you can prevent yourself from giving those nice Nigerian Princes all the money that you have left.
in other words, it is useless bullshit.
No as demonstrated above, you are useless bullshit.
To make any difference requires a drastic change in modern lifestyles. I mean massive and complete change in how modern man lives.
Not really, much of people's impact on greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation and electricity generation. We do not need to eliminate all emissions, we just need to reach a point where we are not rapidly increasing the levels. It's entirely possible to reduce that without dramatic or draconian changes.
Given that you can't convince a majority of people to give up their cars, air conditioning, beef and hundreds of other things that would have to go plus do something about population growth I don't see any real solution.
You don't need to do that. Electric cars can be powered by solar and wind energy. Air conditioning is most necessary on sunny days, which means there's solar power to power the air conditioners. Population growth problem may solve itself, some predictions guess that the global population might fall to 3.5 billion by 2200 with no specific intervention. A different alternative suggests that the global population may stabilize around 10 billion and stay there. But the run-away population growth scenario doesn't seem like a reasonable projection given that birth rates fall as women are educated. Western democracies are largely not having children at a rate high enough to sustain their population.
A global thermonuclear war might solve it but that brings it's own problems. Without a world government exercising dictatorial and draconian laws we're on a course for a hotter planet.
A world government would only be needed if the world ends up having to go to war to stop the polluter nations. If every country voluntarily reduces it's emissions there will be no need for an enforced solution.
That or maybe technology will save us.
There is some hope on that front. There was a paper not so long ago about an improved way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere in a way that is nearly profitable now, and could become profitable without subsidies in the future. So it appears there's more potential there than previously thought.
You are mistaken logically, from athiestic world view, the only things that can matter to you are things that affect you.
Do you really think it's a good idea to publicly admit to everyone that you've never heard of philosophy? Because the only way your ridiculous claims can make any sense what so ever, is if you are completely ignorant of the existence of philosophy.
You have to understand that some people are libertarians and whenever someone says something good about the government, they have to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "Lalala! I can't hear you!" and whenever they see that someone has written something good about the government they have to cover their eyes and face-roll the keyboard until it goes away. Otherwise, they might have to question whether their precious ideology is always right in every situation and that's just not an acceptable outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
And give credit where credit is due. He's made progress with N. Korea. There's a CHANCE he won't bungle it. I think the guy's just a bully and he managed to bully Kim into action. A nuclear game of chicken. The sort of game where you only really have to worry if the other guy is completely crazy. Which oh look, we've got that guy. If reunification happens, it's going to be WEIRD. There will be statues of Trump as a man of peace.
No, I don't think so. You seem to be ignoring a lot of facts, like the one where an earth quake likely heavily damaged the nuclear testing site that Kim Jong Un, has promised to decommission. I don't know what North Korea has planned, but I have serious concerns that Trump and by extension America, is the mark in North Korea's shell game. The "Trump out-crazied North Korea by tweeting" argument is just amazingly unconvincing.
Gerrymandering usually makes most (more than 95%) of the general elections a foregone conclusion, so it's only the nomination ballots that actually have any competition.
There *are* people who want to see America fail and are upset Trump is taking a sharp pro-America approach.
Actually judging from comments on Slashdot before and after the election, there *are* people who want to see America fail and are delighted that Trump is taking a moronic pro-America approach. See the thing I remember quite clearly was that all the people I saw who wrote they explicitly wanted America to burn also declared that they were voting for Trump...
You need to think a little more before replying, because he's right "My country right or wrong" is a terrible and ignorant motto. You're also right that "My country, right or wrong; if right to be kept right, if wrong, to be put right" isn't a terrible motto. However, far too many people seem to forget the second half.
You're NOT the majority.
Strangely enough, nobody is.
They don't care about any of that, because all they want is someone who will beat The Evil Democrats. Everything else, including party and country is secondary to winning against the hated enemy. Sieg uber alles.
Who will keep Scott Pruitt moist now?
We can only hope that his name will be Bubba.
While thousands of dollars on customized luxury pens and journals is not a single large expense it's part of an overall pattern of wasted of government money in the current administration. I don't think it's necessary for hundreds of dollars in gifts to be handed out to foreign environmental policy heads. This is something the Republicans supposedly care about more than Democrats, though Republicans' actions seem to speak differently while in office.
Well, the simple fact seems to be that Republicans no longer care about anything except beating the Democrats. It's sad to see such a political party with such a grand history reduced to such a sorry state.
They're mirroring the Democrats then, because they've totally exited the building. They've recently moved more far left than the republicans have moved far right.
Cue the name calling and insults, but here are the simple facts:
Most likely people call you names because they think your "simple facts" are just partisan lies.
* 25 years ago or less, all the leading democrats declared illegal immigration was bad and needed to stop; you can find the videos of Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama stating this all over the 'net; now many democrats are openly calling for "open borders" and the abolishment of ICE, and those numbers are growing.
I think it's telling that you didn't list any names when you claimed "many democrats(sic)" where calling for open borders. When I looked for Democrats who were calling for open borders, do you know what I found? Republicans who say Democrats are calling for open borders. Maybe it's just the skeptic in me talking, but I'm not inclined to take the word of Republican politicians and pundits on what the other party actually wants.
* Democratic leaders were generally against gay marriage until about 8 - 10 years ago (again, videos are out there), now it's simply evil to suggest otherwise.
You know, that's not actually a left wing position, there are right wing parties in other countries that realized that treating other people as their equals works better than constantly trying to limit who qualifies as fully human. Also, treating other humans as less than human is pretty much the definition of evil.
All democrats just 10 years ago would have loudly denounced socialism, and feigned offense at the very accusation; today it's "the new face of the party".
So given your statement, I understand that you weren't old enough to vote 10 years ago.
Let's look at what is probably the most telling and meaningful metric of public social attitude: television. Things on television today are far, far, far more risque than they were 20 years ago or more; subjects once taboo are now commonplace, and the language restrictions are all but gone. Society as a whole has moved left. From that perspective, it might seem as the Right is moving more right but in actuality they're pretty much standing still for the most part. After all, it's in the name, conservatism.. meaning resistant to change.
No, just no. Your opinions are just too ridiculous. In fact, both the Democrats and the Republicans have moved to the right over the last 20 years. You could figure that out if you wanted to by looking at what policy positions they supported, but you'd rather cherry pick a few things that you think support your desired answer like a clueless child would. When you've conducted (or at least read) some longitudinal studies that show whether and if so what shift in the policies supported by each political party has taken place, then you can come back and try to pretend that you're an adult again.
Oh, I agree with you. I just wanted to add the point that Trump basically doesn't know the difference between a good deal and a bad deal. He has only a limited understanding of "good for me" deals.
You know, that's not the entire truth...
Quite a few of the deals that Trump actually made for himself are also a bad deal for Trump... As evidence by his lifelong history of breaking contracts because he didn't want to honour them.
Are we really so detached from reality that praise is given in the present for accomplishing a possible and unlikely future event? Remember when India claimed they were making a tablet for $20 or when they said they would be on the moon by a few years ago without any external help?
Have you looked at the American government recently? Even just having a plan to do something reasonably achievable that's not inherently evil does seem like a vast improvement over the current American government...
I'm sorry this is just wrong... Trump was trying to distract people from the child abuse that he ordered in name of border security because no one believed his claims that he had to do it because it was the law, or his next claim that the Democrats made him do it, or his final claim that Obama was so much worse than he was, so he finally had to switch to "look at the shiny space marines!" so his followers could continue ignoring his heartless incompetence.
I'm only correcting you because It's important to know what specifically Trump is trying to distract people from.
Hey! Don't spoil the overarching plot for Season 2.
Because the people who can fire Trump are afraid of offending the people who vote for them. Specifically they refuse to cancel him because they're afraid that their voters will cancel them immediately afterwards (by voting for someone else in the primaries). This is fallout from gerrymandering and partisan propaganda being so successful that they fear primary challenges far more than general elections.
Sorry, there are other people who have better claims of experience who have already told me your interpretation is wrong.
Plus there's an actual investigation that we actually know comes from the FBI that explicitly disagrees with your claims...
You know, if I had been me who was planning to make sure that Trump didn't win the election, I would have released that information before the election when it could actually influence people's votes, but maybe I'm not as smart as the masterminds behind this conspiracy that you claim exists...
Neither liberals nor conservatives approve of how Comey handled that investigation... Really? Most of the liberals I know are thrilled with the investigation because it ended up with the results they wanted. Never mind the fact that the investigation was very badly mishandled and that he had no business deciding that nobody would be willing to prosecute, it ended up with Hillary safe, and that's all they care about.
See what this comment tells me is that you don't actually know any liberals...
The classified is actually a big deal. People do get charged and prosecuted and even convicted of it. A one time incident no, but multiple instances including TOP SECRET (at least eight instances according to Comey's briefing in July 2016) does get prosecuted. A one time event is a slap on the wrist a second or even a third time the same, 100+ instances is a pattern of willful criminal negligence that does get prosecuted.
Honestly, you only wish that things actually worked that way. You're projecting fantasies of perfection onto imperfect people.
You know if boggles the mind of liberals that you care about a handful of emails out of thousands sent over 4 years that contained bits of classified information, and you don't care that the actual President of the United States ordered illegal hush money paid and threats delivered to his former mistresses to keep them from speaking out during an election, then lied about the payments, and then lied about the affairs.
You should be self-aware enough to recognize that if we swapped the Democrat and Republican in this scenario you'd be ever more outraged about the reverse situation. I doubt the liberals would still care about the emails, though. I'm basing that on the fact that liberals largely didn't care that much when Bush and Cheney were using a private email system to avoid presidential records requirements, but conservatives sure as hell cared about the President's sexual morality when Clinton was in office.
No, I'm not going to play your childish games. Go educate yourself, read at least an introductory book on philosophy and when you have some iota of knowledge relevant to the discussion maybe you won't be a complete waste of time and space.
wrong, article is equivalent of saying 50 +/- 50 soldiers are coming.
The article says 1330 to 4110.
Why make up numbers when they're right there?
You should be able to tell that since 2720 is larger than 1390 that zero can not fall into the range of 2720 +/- 1390.
Since this is basic addition and subtraction, it's practically inconceivable that you screwed it up instead of simply choosing to lie to people. Of course, if you did screw it up, then you are so incompetent that you should think long and hard about whether you should post anything anywhere ever again. It might be for the best if you simply destroyed your keyboard, so you can prevent yourself from giving those nice Nigerian Princes all the money that you have left.
in other words, it is useless bullshit.
No as demonstrated above, you are useless bullshit.
credible studies show antarctic ice *growing*,
No, actually they don't.
I'll believe NASA over *nature* alarmist hippies any day of the week
If you think Nature is run by "hippies" then you're both ignorant and delusional.
To make any difference requires a drastic change in modern lifestyles. I mean massive and complete change in how modern man lives.
Not really, much of people's impact on greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation and electricity generation. We do not need to eliminate all emissions, we just need to reach a point where we are not rapidly increasing the levels. It's entirely possible to reduce that without dramatic or draconian changes.
Given that you can't convince a majority of people to give up their cars, air conditioning, beef and hundreds of other things that would have to go plus do something about population growth I don't see any real solution.
You don't need to do that. Electric cars can be powered by solar and wind energy. Air conditioning is most necessary on sunny days, which means there's solar power to power the air conditioners. Population growth problem may solve itself, some predictions guess that the global population might fall to 3.5 billion by 2200 with no specific intervention. A different alternative suggests that the global population may stabilize around 10 billion and stay there. But the run-away population growth scenario doesn't seem like a reasonable projection given that birth rates fall as women are educated. Western democracies are largely not having children at a rate high enough to sustain their population.
A global thermonuclear war might solve it but that brings it's own problems. Without a world government exercising dictatorial and draconian laws we're on a course for a hotter planet.
A world government would only be needed if the world ends up having to go to war to stop the polluter nations. If every country voluntarily reduces it's emissions there will be no need for an enforced solution.
That or maybe technology will save us.
There is some hope on that front. There was a paper not so long ago about an improved way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere in a way that is nearly profitable now, and could become profitable without subsidies in the future. So it appears there's more potential there than previously thought.
You are mistaken logically, from athiestic world view, the only things that can matter to you are things that affect you.
Do you really think it's a good idea to publicly admit to everyone that you've never heard of philosophy? Because the only way your ridiculous claims can make any sense what so ever, is if you are completely ignorant of the existence of philosophy.
You have to understand that some people are libertarians and whenever someone says something good about the government, they have to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "Lalala! I can't hear you!" and whenever they see that someone has written something good about the government they have to cover their eyes and face-roll the keyboard until it goes away. Otherwise, they might have to question whether their precious ideology is always right in every situation and that's just not an acceptable outcome.