And? We can start them up tomorrow if we wanted. The next war game wasn't until next year. Literally, nothing has changed in that regard. The only difference is that we went from a path of nuclear war. High tension rhetoric and action. To soft concessions.
Please put it in perspective. If (that is a big if but it is monumentally more possible now than it was 2 years ago) if we avoid nuclear war. Would it be worth it?
How about the legitimacy of a meeting with a sitting US president, complete with all of the pomp of our flags sitting next to each other, Trump saluting their generals, etc?
Lol, the saluting their generals? Come on did you think Trump insulted Abe with the fish too? Watch the full clip. It's trying to be polite in an awkward situation with different customs.
Again, that legitimacy can be taken away by Trump with a single word and we are right back to where we were 2 years ago. Nothing lost and we are track for war. That legitimacy is the point of negotiation that Trump gave that can be taken away. You can't have a deal if one party has nothing to gain and in return we don't risk nuclear war. Do you think a little PR is worth the risk?
. You're only saying that because he gave North Korea everything they wanted with absolutely nothing in return
If what you "give" in diplomacy can be taken away with a simple word then nothing has really been given. We could start military drills with SK tomorrow if we'd like. Those drills were not going to happen anyway until next year IIRC. Nothing has been given.
It depends on how it starts and I think many Americans would be sympathetic to Taiwan considering they are a functional democracy and a large trade partner to the US.
It seems that Trump is being delicate in how he aligns with Taiwan but moving in a good direction in a delicate way.
Personally, I hope he and any US president supports Taiwan and their independence.
I think there is something whimsical that in your scenario, Europeans are the aristocrats that do not produce, protect, or supply anything that couldn't be done by other nations. They get to sit on high in their ivory towers while the rest of the world protect and supply their sophisticated tastes.
You forgot the other 2 parts Europe would offer: Education and Research.
No I didn't. Ivory Tower is an apt description. Or put as "an environment of intellectual pursuit disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life". Not concerning yourself with defense, money, manufacturing, or resource supply so that you can only care about "education, research, and culture" is the summit of disconnect from practical concerns.
Those who think the EU provides the US with nothing (or less than the US provides the EU) tend to be the ones who think military spending is all that matters; they are wrong.
In the scenario given, the EU provides nothing that the other members would no be able to provide. Why would they care about European culture?
Even now, the US provides those things and defense and there is still trepidation and resentment and somehow a scenario where the EU can fulfill that role without providing for defense all the while expecting taking advantage of the resources, defense, money, and manufacturing of others will somehow be stable is fanciful.
Whenever I see any pop-science article using "could', "might", "potentially", or "possible" I automatically negate those words. If doing that doesn't change the meaning of the statement I tend to pass it by.
"The moon could have been habitable to life." reads to me "The moon could not have been habitable to life.". Well, that isn't extraordinary.
There could be some interesting details and I'll find an article that focuses on those details that doesn't use hype words.
You seem to have issue with the rules working against your favor half the time, yet don't seem to want the system to stabilize something other than an extreme
My state politics are not extreme and the extremists get booted out pretty quickly. That may change but for the last few number of years has been ok. I don't mind my congressmen. My 3 federal votes seem working fine for me. Although, I wish I only had 2 federal election votes. I want the Federal government to have less power over what happens in my state so that I don't have to care about the Cortez's or Sanders of the world. Your ideas seem to give more power to the government which forces me to care and fight against it.
I have an issue with others using the Federal government as a club to get their way. I have no problem with the system you proposed. I want you to risk your political power and prove that it works instead of interfering with my state elections. Trump winning is not reason enough to condemn the whole system to the whims of political expediency to "make sure it never happens again".
Don't like the primaries? Neither do I. However, they are a private organization and freedom to assemble is not restricted because the goal of that assembly is to elect someone. I do think there is a case to be made of state resources being used for a private parties primary election. But again, until you demonstrate in your state, risking your power, and convince people in your state it works I have no reason to care. Your problems are not my problems.
The problems I have had lately with the federal government is overreach and a renunciation of power from the Congress. The reason fro that is because too many think political expediency is more important than proper governance.
> A candidate's going to win, and is going to make an entire industry illegal Like Obama and coal? Regardless what you think of coal, he did what you fear in a hypothetical. Suddenly, the shoe is on the other foot and now it's a problem? I don't even like coal but it seems that Obama did what you were fearful of. Disregarded fly over states. Ignored their needs. Attacked their industry. Outsourced their jobs. Without congress. Without consent. Without due process. Through legislative fiat. All because they were expendable to the Obama political machine. A new Democratic alliance that excluded white working males because they are no longer needed in the shifting demographics of the US... Go figure people were upset.
What if... we acted through federalism instead of forcing your ideas on others? Nah, fuck that. Easier and more expedient to change the elections and system to favor me and use the courts to force my agenda. That'll show 'em! If you can't beat 'em change the rules.
The more I read your politics the more I don't like it. It seems you are more concerned about pushing any opposition out of the way to force your ideas on others than working toward a consensus and federalism.
The Electoral College does not protect small states. It ensures that a slim majority controlled by a small set of swing votes can choose the President and trample over the large minority.
That is quite that double-speak on an institution that protects the minority in the country. "slim majority" can trample over a "large minority". The majority lost. The minority won. That is protecting the minority.
I want to make a note that I am not trying to demean you or your policy when I ask about whether they should be pursued at the state vs federal level. Not many people put their money where their mouth is and run for office, including me.
As far as Federal vs State, I could agree that (particularly on the restructuring of welfare that may increase taxes) that those necessitate a federal initiative to accommodate the potential tax increase. There are two arguments that could be made. 1) any welfare program (restructuring included) must be at the federal level. 2) the federal government taxes too much and has taken too many roles that were normally fulfilled by the state that leaves the states powerless to enact the changes they want for their citizens. Personally, I find #2 more palatable.
As far as elections go, I like how the President is elected. I do not want that changed. You have to convince me that smaller states should give up their say in the only election for the executive branch. That is a tough sell. Although, I applaud your thoughts for changing your state election and leading by example. I like to see a political plan working before the rhetoric. Too often we see rhetoric before action. if you change your state election and demonstrate feasibility. I think you are correct to assume that many others will be more favorable to go along with your change. Prohibition didn't start at the federal level. It was a political fight across the nation across every local election before amendment.
The only way California will be split is if it creates a solid red state and a blue state. However, I find this trend of thought troubling from democrats and more and more I see it when they are out of power. SCOTUS going the wrong way? Pack the court. Senate the wrong majority? Split California, add new Democrat states to swing it. House of Reps wrong? Change the elections. President wrong party? Change the system.
Talk about undermining confidence in the system. This type of attitude is rather destructive and necessitates me and other GOP to be defensive and stonewall any democrat because of possibility they get in power, like 2008 and force their agenda. I trust democrats less because of garbage rhetoric like that. The democrats are not the "good" people and the GOP is not the "evil" people. Any attempt to conflate it as such is a lie and propaganda.
This only highlights the importance of election methods which reflect the will of the people
You miss the important part that democracy isn't the end all be all of civics. There are reasons to not fall sway to the "will of the people" and why we have a Senate and an Electoral College and a House of Rep. A republic is many orders of magnitude better than a democracy. There are good reasons to hear the will of the people and good times to temper that will. Sometimes "No" is the correct answer to people. The Senate was supposed to be a bulwark of that will yet it has been corrupted by that will because of 17th amendment. The 17th failed on every promise that was made and it has only made the Senate worse by all measures and needs to be repealed. Want support for election reform? Repeal the 17th.
That's why Bush tore down a lot of Clinton's work; Obama reversed much of what Bush did; Trump is tearing apart Obama's policies; and the next Democratic President and Congress will spend much of its time turning over the Administration and putting the tax laws back where they were in 2016, right?
Because congress isn't doing its job. Because it is politically easier to use a pen and phone than convince people that you are right. That is more of an example of executive overreach than instability. The laws passed during those times are still the law, mostly. As it takes law to undue law. Yes, ignoring the law (separation of power) for expedient outcomes results in instability.
scapegoating all current problems on poor people, government, and a break from trad
You said it brought "a surge" in shortsighted and narrowminded egotism. I disagree with that because as mentioned that is not unique to capitalism or America and any "surge" can be attributed to the size and impact of both on the world stage. There is no evidence for any change in human nature under capitalism or America. The only evidence is the success that has been built that enables more participants to enact their desires.
You choose to ignore the fact that I recognise the genuinely good of the American people and instead prefer to take offence
Your post continues on the path of self flagellation built on a faulty premise. I don't take offense to your faulty opinion or the need to flog a system that has done more good than harm. A pity concession before the ritual flogging is hardly praise nor offensive to the non-believer.
I do in fact stop an think and make sure I understand. It is a shame that most people don't.
You are very special and unique that does not fall for the same pitfalls in thinking that everyone else does. Congrats. Get a psychological paper written about you that explains why you are different.
Ah, suddenly I remember why it is I can't really be bothered to take part in the debate here
Judging by your post history it seems like the debate around anything political is the issue. It's a shortcoming for most people.
They have done some work on their site since last I saw (probably the last time Venus was mentioned as a more suitable destination than Mars and the inevitable 'floating in a dense atmosphere is impossible!'). It's nice to see them still doing good work.
Couple questions. Why not try to win in local elections before moving to the federal level? Have you tried to win office in your state legislature or was challenging an incumbent congressmen your first try for public office? The states control the elections so if you wanted election reform the state would be a logical start.
It doesn't bother me to disagree with you on many issues if you want to enact those changes in your state but when you advocate at the federal level then it becomes a different ballgame. I may not like the Republicans but what the Democrats are doing now is even more unsavory. So when I see you posting ideas that, in your words, " the Democrats would likely gain total, unending control". I get anxious about your proposals even if you acknowledge there are problems and one consequence could be one party rule. I would rather you lead by example and risk your political power before you risk mine. I have to admit, my state legislature is doing well enough and the few problems we have are being discussed and worked on. I don't really think election reform is necessary for me and my state. That's the point and I do not what you meddling in my state through the federal government because you think you know what my state needs or wants.
Our government has stability. The problem is when you want to change something you have to convince people across the nation not just in your city. Inaction is a feature not a bug and is the default status of the government.
Republicans are completely-broken from an idealistic standpoint; the Democrats have the right ideals, yet their execution is corroded by politics.
I think you have that completely backwards. Democrats are unsure whether the future of the party is socialism or not. And no not the Nordic Model of socialism but a rejection of private property such as the DSA and A.O. Cortez. They are giving illegals the power of voting in the Bay Area while advocating open borders. Hardly good ideals since they amount to the dissolution of the nation. What do the democrats stand for? What was their platform for 2016? What is their platform now? If all they have is "against Trump" then I don't think they have a good solid platform with a firm ideal.
The Republicans have their ideals but they are bad at politics and they don't have a spine to stand up to democrats like the recent example of Ryan Bounds confirmation to the 9th circuit. Democrats were and are always going to complain about judges as they have demonstrated and what Bounds said in college hardly was damning. Yet, Democrats made a stink and Republicans folded. The GOP has the ideals but fail at politics.
Let's be fair to Flat Earthers. They live in a world that could be legitimately described as a "space pizza". Flying through space on a pizza with a disk of cheese "orbiting (is that what the moon does in Flattarida?)" sounds... delicious.
Now if you will excuse me, it's dinner time and there is a pizza that is about to be sucked into a black hole.
You can just as easily apply that 'truthiness' to any position for any low/non-information person.
Take climate change. "The ozone is being destroyed by toxic waste dumps that must be fixed by a carbon tax." Is fundamentally wrong on all levels even if the idea they support, climate change, may have empirical evidence to support it. FWIU, there is no correlation between understanding the science of climate change and supporting the "democrat solution".
Finding a low information voter that uses 'truthiness' to virtue signal to their tribe is not new thing. Splitting hairs between "low-information" and 'non-information' doesn't underpin this idea and it just emphasizes the tribe you are signaling with your "virtue".
it has also brought with it a surge in narrowminded and shortsighted egotism that taints everything. As long as "I" am successful, nothing else matters - society, the environment, the next generation, they can all go and screw themselves, as long as I have what I want.
Created environmental protection. Donates more to charity. Has actually lowered CO2 emissions. I think you, like others, can't see the forest for the trees. There is a cost to everything and negotiating that cost is not shortsighted. Blindly accepting any cost is very narrow-minded.
I don't know why you and others think that the the narrow-minded and shortsighted egotism is unique to the US. We have seen that kind of human behavior everywhere that had nothing to do with the US or capitalism.
The White-Rhino isn't going extinct because of American superstition and shortsightedness. Or is it the fault of the US because the US traded with China creating wealth for the Chinese so they could afford that superstition? However, I do see Americans setting up some very successful environmental protection that flies in the face of "narrow-minded and shortsighted egotism". They even come from "Trump country that hates EPA regulation"! Unless Idaho is a liberal bastion I was unaware of that also voted to have "the right to hunt, fish, and trap".
The only difference is that the US values private property and views it as a right. If "I" am successful then my children will have a better life. My children are more important to me than you. If I am successful enough I can donate $40 million to save the environment when the government is too crippled by Civil War. Not every millionaire will do that just like not every government will either.
I do not fault the hunters of bushmeat to feed their families when that is their only choice. There are serious environmental and conservational problems with bushmeat but until those people can be successful to help their children then conservation is a lofty idea for the rich and fed. Most people would burn the Mona Lisa to feed their family. It's easy to say you wouldn't with a full belly.
Be cautious how you spread your complaint of contemptible human behavior when also bemoaning the most efficient means of resource distribution that created the most successful country that values private property. It seems rather shortsighted and narrow-minded.
Slashdot Mirror
And? We can start them up tomorrow if we wanted. The next war game wasn't until next year. Literally, nothing has changed in that regard. The only difference is that we went from a path of nuclear war. High tension rhetoric and action. To soft concessions.
Please put it in perspective. If (that is a big if but it is monumentally more possible now than it was 2 years ago) if we avoid nuclear war. Would it be worth it?
How about the legitimacy of a meeting with a sitting US president, complete with all of the pomp of our flags sitting next to each other, Trump saluting their generals, etc?
Lol, the saluting their generals? Come on did you think Trump insulted Abe with the fish too? Watch the full clip. It's trying to be polite in an awkward situation with different customs.
Again, that legitimacy can be taken away by Trump with a single word and we are right back to where we were 2 years ago. Nothing lost and we are track for war. That legitimacy is the point of negotiation that Trump gave that can be taken away. You can't have a deal if one party has nothing to gain and in return we don't risk nuclear war. Do you think a little PR is worth the risk?
. You're only saying that because he gave North Korea everything they wanted with absolutely nothing in return
If what you "give" in diplomacy can be taken away with a simple word then nothing has really been given. We could start military drills with SK tomorrow if we'd like. Those drills were not going to happen anyway until next year IIRC. Nothing has been given.
What in your mind has been given to NK?
It depends on how it starts and I think many Americans would be sympathetic to Taiwan considering they are a functional democracy and a large trade partner to the US.
It seems that Trump is being delicate in how he aligns with Taiwan but moving in a good direction in a delicate way.
Personally, I hope he and any US president supports Taiwan and their independence.
I wouldn't put it past you. TDS is a serious condition that one should seek immediate professional medical help.
I think there is something whimsical that in your scenario, Europeans are the aristocrats that do not produce, protect, or supply anything that couldn't be done by other nations. They get to sit on high in their ivory towers while the rest of the world protect and supply their sophisticated tastes.
You forgot the other 2 parts Europe would offer: Education and Research.
No I didn't. Ivory Tower is an apt description. Or put as "an environment of intellectual pursuit disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life". Not concerning yourself with defense, money, manufacturing, or resource supply so that you can only care about "education, research, and culture" is the summit of disconnect from practical concerns.
Those who think the EU provides the US with nothing (or less than the US provides the EU) tend to be the ones who think military spending is all that matters; they are wrong.
In the scenario given, the EU provides nothing that the other members would no be able to provide. Why would they care about European culture?
Even now, the US provides those things and defense and there is still trepidation and resentment and somehow a scenario where the EU can fulfill that role without providing for defense all the while expecting taking advantage of the resources, defense, money, and manufacturing of others will somehow be stable is fanciful.
The entire scenario is a joke.
Whenever I see any pop-science article using "could', "might", "potentially", or "possible" I automatically negate those words. If doing that doesn't change the meaning of the statement I tend to pass it by.
"The moon could have been habitable to life." reads to me "The moon could not have been habitable to life.". Well, that isn't extraordinary.
There could be some interesting details and I'll find an article that focuses on those details that doesn't use hype words.
You seem to have issue with the rules working against your favor half the time, yet don't seem to want the system to stabilize something other than an extreme
My state politics are not extreme and the extremists get booted out pretty quickly. That may change but for the last few number of years has been ok. I don't mind my congressmen. My 3 federal votes seem working fine for me. Although, I wish I only had 2 federal election votes. I want the Federal government to have less power over what happens in my state so that I don't have to care about the Cortez's or Sanders of the world. Your ideas seem to give more power to the government which forces me to care and fight against it.
I have an issue with others using the Federal government as a club to get their way. I have no problem with the system you proposed. I want you to risk your political power and prove that it works instead of interfering with my state elections. Trump winning is not reason enough to condemn the whole system to the whims of political expediency to "make sure it never happens again".
Don't like the primaries? Neither do I. However, they are a private organization and freedom to assemble is not restricted because the goal of that assembly is to elect someone. I do think there is a case to be made of state resources being used for a private parties primary election. But again, until you demonstrate in your state, risking your power, and convince people in your state it works I have no reason to care. Your problems are not my problems.
The problems I have had lately with the federal government is overreach and a renunciation of power from the Congress. The reason fro that is because too many think political expediency is more important than proper governance.
What if...
> A candidate's going to win, and is going to make an entire industry illegal
Like Obama and coal? Regardless what you think of coal, he did what you fear in a hypothetical. Suddenly, the shoe is on the other foot and now it's a problem? I don't even like coal but it seems that Obama did what you were fearful of. Disregarded fly over states. Ignored their needs. Attacked their industry. Outsourced their jobs. Without congress. Without consent. Without due process. Through legislative fiat. All because they were expendable to the Obama political machine. A new Democratic alliance that excluded white working males because they are no longer needed in the shifting demographics of the US... Go figure people were upset.
What if... we acted through federalism instead of forcing your ideas on others? Nah, fuck that. Easier and more expedient to change the elections and system to favor me and use the courts to force my agenda. That'll show 'em! If you can't beat 'em change the rules.
The more I read your politics the more I don't like it. It seems you are more concerned about pushing any opposition out of the way to force your ideas on others than working toward a consensus and federalism.
The Electoral College does not protect small states. It ensures that a slim majority controlled by a small set of swing votes can choose the President and trample over the large minority.
That is quite that double-speak on an institution that protects the minority in the country. "slim majority" can trample over a "large minority". The majority lost. The minority won. That is protecting the minority.
I want to make a note that I am not trying to demean you or your policy when I ask about whether they should be pursued at the state vs federal level. Not many people put their money where their mouth is and run for office, including me.
As far as Federal vs State, I could agree that (particularly on the restructuring of welfare that may increase taxes) that those necessitate a federal initiative to accommodate the potential tax increase. There are two arguments that could be made. 1) any welfare program (restructuring included) must be at the federal level. 2) the federal government taxes too much and has taken too many roles that were normally fulfilled by the state that leaves the states powerless to enact the changes they want for their citizens. Personally, I find #2 more palatable.
As far as elections go, I like how the President is elected. I do not want that changed. You have to convince me that smaller states should give up their say in the only election for the executive branch. That is a tough sell. Although, I applaud your thoughts for changing your state election and leading by example. I like to see a political plan working before the rhetoric. Too often we see rhetoric before action. if you change your state election and demonstrate feasibility. I think you are correct to assume that many others will be more favorable to go along with your change. Prohibition didn't start at the federal level. It was a political fight across the nation across every local election before amendment.
The only way California will be split is if it creates a solid red state and a blue state. However, I find this trend of thought troubling from democrats and more and more I see it when they are out of power. SCOTUS going the wrong way? Pack the court. Senate the wrong majority? Split California, add new Democrat states to swing it. House of Reps wrong? Change the elections. President wrong party? Change the system.
Talk about undermining confidence in the system. This type of attitude is rather destructive and necessitates me and other GOP to be defensive and stonewall any democrat because of possibility they get in power, like 2008 and force their agenda. I trust democrats less because of garbage rhetoric like that. The democrats are not the "good" people and the GOP is not the "evil" people. Any attempt to conflate it as such is a lie and propaganda.
This only highlights the importance of election methods which reflect the will of the people
You miss the important part that democracy isn't the end all be all of civics. There are reasons to not fall sway to the "will of the people" and why we have a Senate and an Electoral College and a House of Rep. A republic is many orders of magnitude better than a democracy. There are good reasons to hear the will of the people and good times to temper that will. Sometimes "No" is the correct answer to people. The Senate was supposed to be a bulwark of that will yet it has been corrupted by that will because of 17th amendment. The 17th failed on every promise that was made and it has only made the Senate worse by all measures and needs to be repealed. Want support for election reform? Repeal the 17th.
That's why Bush tore down a lot of Clinton's work; Obama reversed much of what Bush did; Trump is tearing apart Obama's policies; and the next Democratic President and Congress will spend much of its time turning over the Administration and putting the tax laws back where they were in 2016, right?
Because congress isn't doing its job. Because it is politically easier to use a pen and phone than convince people that you are right. That is more of an example of executive overreach than instability. The laws passed during those times are still the law, mostly. As it takes law to undue law. Yes, ignoring the law (separation of power) for expedient outcomes results in instability.
scapegoating all current problems on poor people, government, and a break from trad
You said it brought "a surge" in shortsighted and narrowminded egotism. I disagree with that because as mentioned that is not unique to capitalism or America and any "surge" can be attributed to the size and impact of both on the world stage. There is no evidence for any change in human nature under capitalism or America. The only evidence is the success that has been built that enables more participants to enact their desires.
You choose to ignore the fact that I recognise the genuinely good of the American people and instead prefer to take offence
Your post continues on the path of self flagellation built on a faulty premise. I don't take offense to your faulty opinion or the need to flog a system that has done more good than harm. A pity concession before the ritual flogging is hardly praise nor offensive to the non-believer.
I do in fact stop an think and make sure I understand. It is a shame that most people don't.
You are very special and unique that does not fall for the same pitfalls in thinking that everyone else does. Congrats. Get a psychological paper written about you that explains why you are different.
Ah, suddenly I remember why it is I can't really be bothered to take part in the debate here
Judging by your post history it seems like the debate around anything political is the issue. It's a shortcoming for most people.
They have done some work on their site since last I saw (probably the last time Venus was mentioned as a more suitable destination than Mars and the inevitable 'floating in a dense atmosphere is impossible!'). It's nice to see them still doing good work.
Cheers.
Couple questions. Why not try to win in local elections before moving to the federal level? Have you tried to win office in your state legislature or was challenging an incumbent congressmen your first try for public office? The states control the elections so if you wanted election reform the state would be a logical start.
It doesn't bother me to disagree with you on many issues if you want to enact those changes in your state but when you advocate at the federal level then it becomes a different ballgame. I may not like the Republicans but what the Democrats are doing now is even more unsavory. So when I see you posting ideas that, in your words, " the Democrats would likely gain total, unending control". I get anxious about your proposals even if you acknowledge there are problems and one consequence could be one party rule. I would rather you lead by example and risk your political power before you risk mine. I have to admit, my state legislature is doing well enough and the few problems we have are being discussed and worked on. I don't really think election reform is necessary for me and my state. That's the point and I do not what you meddling in my state through the federal government because you think you know what my state needs or wants.
Our government has stability. The problem is when you want to change something you have to convince people across the nation not just in your city. Inaction is a feature not a bug and is the default status of the government.
Republicans are completely-broken from an idealistic standpoint; the Democrats have the right ideals, yet their execution is corroded by politics.
I think you have that completely backwards. Democrats are unsure whether the future of the party is socialism or not. And no not the Nordic Model of socialism but a rejection of private property such as the DSA and A.O. Cortez. They are giving illegals the power of voting in the Bay Area while advocating open borders. Hardly good ideals since they amount to the dissolution of the nation. What do the democrats stand for? What was their platform for 2016? What is their platform now? If all they have is "against Trump" then I don't think they have a good solid platform with a firm ideal.
The Republicans have their ideals but they are bad at politics and they don't have a spine to stand up to democrats like the recent example of Ryan Bounds confirmation to the 9th circuit. Democrats were and are always going to complain about judges as they have demonstrated and what Bounds said in college hardly was damning. Yet, Democrats made a stink and Republicans folded. The GOP has the ideals but fail at politics.
I would but I jest couldn't help myself.
It's jest all the way down.
You really make me wish that the energy put toward Mars was focused on Venus.
I demand floating cities on Venus. Not because of some Star Wars reference but to stick it to those mole-like Martians!
I'm a physicist. That's what we do.
Physics is just applied mathematics! /snark
... ... I'll show myself the door.
https://www.xkcd.com/435/
To be honest, my comment was made in jest.
Let's be fair to Flat Earthers. They live in a world that could be legitimately described as a "space pizza". Flying through space on a pizza with a disk of cheese "orbiting (is that what the moon does in Flattarida?)" sounds... delicious.
Now if you will excuse me, it's dinner time and there is a pizza that is about to be sucked into a black hole.
You can just as easily apply that 'truthiness' to any position for any low/non-information person.
Take climate change. "The ozone is being destroyed by toxic waste dumps that must be fixed by a carbon tax." Is fundamentally wrong on all levels even if the idea they support, climate change, may have empirical evidence to support it. FWIU, there is no correlation between understanding the science of climate change and supporting the "democrat solution".
Finding a low information voter that uses 'truthiness' to virtue signal to their tribe is not new thing. Splitting hairs between "low-information" and 'non-information' doesn't underpin this idea and it just emphasizes the tribe you are signaling with your "virtue".
Would it matter for non-native species?
I look forward to our future where rockets to space are as boring as a flight to LA. Hopefully the spaceport won't be as crappy as LAX.
We should get off oil and use nuclear!
it has also brought with it a surge in narrowminded and shortsighted egotism that taints everything. As long as "I" am successful, nothing else matters - society, the environment, the next generation, they can all go and screw themselves, as long as I have what I want.
Created environmental protection. Donates more to charity. Has actually lowered CO2 emissions. I think you, like others, can't see the forest for the trees. There is a cost to everything and negotiating that cost is not shortsighted. Blindly accepting any cost is very narrow-minded.
I don't know why you and others think that the the narrow-minded and shortsighted egotism is unique to the US. We have seen that kind of human behavior everywhere that had nothing to do with the US or capitalism.
The White-Rhino isn't going extinct because of American superstition and shortsightedness. Or is it the fault of the US because the US traded with China creating wealth for the Chinese so they could afford that superstition? However, I do see Americans setting up some very successful environmental protection that flies in the face of "narrow-minded and shortsighted egotism". They even come from "Trump country that hates EPA regulation"! Unless Idaho is a liberal bastion I was unaware of that also voted to have "the right to hunt, fish, and trap".
The only difference is that the US values private property and views it as a right. If "I" am successful then my children will have a better life. My children are more important to me than you. If I am successful enough I can donate $40 million to save the environment when the government is too crippled by Civil War. Not every millionaire will do that just like not every government will either.
I do not fault the hunters of bushmeat to feed their families when that is their only choice. There are serious environmental and conservational problems with bushmeat but until those people can be successful to help their children then conservation is a lofty idea for the rich and fed. Most people would burn the Mona Lisa to feed their family. It's easy to say you wouldn't with a full belly.
Be cautious how you spread your complaint of contemptible human behavior when also bemoaning the most efficient means of resource distribution that created the most successful country that values private property. It seems rather shortsighted and narrow-minded.