You seem to be another ignorant individual. The continental ecosystems and oceanic ecosystems are connected and their is complex interplay between them but honestly, we need the ocean more than the ocean needs us.
Consider this though, as the Earth gets hotter, there will be a mass migration of humans because the regions of arable land are going to shift while others become completely uninhabitable to all but the most extreme lifeforms. Every anti-immigrant reject should be screaming about the threat of global warming. Famine is in the future but it will be a great time for diseases to flourish. It might be that pollution from the human population is brought under control because disease wipes out most of humanity.
My ecosystem is carbon neutral. It absorbs and later expels CO2. It's existed for billions of years (in various forms) but has never been in short supply of CO2. However, too much CO2 causes the oceans to become increasingly acidic and the atmosphere to retain too much heat that is disrupting the balanced cycles of life that it enshrines.
Water is absolutely vital for humans to survive but feel free to go drink water until you develop a case of water toxemia. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
Only if you get your information from an entertainment network that explicitly dodges liability for it's lies because it's "not a news station" or are gullible enough to believe what a documented compulsive liar tells you.
Since we're no longer subsidizing electric cars, how about we stop subsidizing oil for ICE cars too? How about we stop subsidizing coal too? Putting tons of CO2 into the air is currently 100% environmentally subsidized and that needs to end before it destroys our ecosystem. Instead, people need to start paying so that every gram of CO2 released is also being extracted. It's a market friendly solution to pollution but wouldn't you know it there are people who are against accepting personal responsibility for their own actions.
Current change is within the range of natural variation.
Assuming your assertion is true, it's not going to stay in that range much longer. On our current path parts of the planet will become so hot that they will uninhabitable to humans. That's totally out of wack.
The poor sods who wrote this paper will be crushed by the Global Warming maniacs.
Not at all. This aligns perfectly with our existing understanding of Earth. Climate changes slowly over periods hundreds of thousands and millions of years.
The problem with global warming is that the climate is changing in a periods of decades. This is a problem because this does not provide the time required for fauna/flora to evolve. As a result of this decreased period, many species are facing extinction.
It was announced, as of January 3, 2014, that Stardock has started a Star Control reboot, but has no estimation of a release date.[13] The Star Control website and forums have also been relaunched.[14]
It seems to me that if there is a public announcement that you are developing a game that specifically mentions your "IP" and you fail to raise any objections for 4 years then you have failed to enforce your copyright. Only raising objections three months after release is such bullshit.
I don't care if the owners are technically entitled under the law, this is still bullshit.
Ditch that clunky GTK API! I mean, that idiots that made that should be exiled and forced to work on developing a graphics application with it. I bet it would wind up as much as an abomination at GTK!;)
(psst... hey captain whoosh, GTK was made by GIMP devs for GIMP)
I think you have it all wrong. People have no problem with the Chinese or their culture. The problem people have is with the Chinese government. You act as if you are unaware of their actions.
- they have been suppressing dissent and then hunting down dissidents to jail them - the re-education prisons that they are putting Muslims into - the massive video surveillance network they are building out - the social ranking system they are using keep "undesirables" from traveling or buying things - let's not forget the organ harvesting program that at first "don't exist" and the later "we don't do that anymore" - they refuse to allow women to inherit things which is causing the gender ratio to be skewed
I'm not saying all other governments are angels but Chinese government is downright evil. The Chinese people are as much a victim of them as the rest of us.
I needed to show that checks on power can exist without democracy, and that I have done.
Yes, in your imaginary kingdom, it's all peachy alongside all the communist states.
My heart bleeds for the individual but at the same time I recognise that the people(s) have brought that misery on their collective selves, and so they need to sort their shit out to get out of the hole they dug themselves into
Well going along with your twisted experiment, how do you know they won't come out the other side even worse than before? How do you know they will change at all? Frankly, seems like you're simply interested in saying, "it's not my problem, leave me alone" and just reading the news about people being senselessly killed which you don't mind.
If only there was a way to reach all those people cheaply. Like, with electronic messaging devices connected to each other.
You aren't grasping the scale of the issue. If it was so simple then someone would have already done it, don't you think?
Both this lack of respect, and how the other wing didn't show any such lack of respect. I'm pretty sure mr cigar, mr. dubya, and oklahoma bahamas did all sorts of legally questionable things
Not even close. Republicans were itching to impeach Mr. Obama and would have done so given half the chance (almost did when he wore that tan suit:P). Mr. Clinton was impeached because he lied about an affair but it was more about him having an affair. Frankly, I think Richard Cheney is a war criminal and GW Bush was his hapless dope. However, none of them paid hush money during an election, conspire with a foreign nation to defraud the US, tried to profit from the presidency, suborn perjury, obstruct justice and whatever else has been uncovered by the investigation. That's not even the things that should get him impeached, those are just the crimes that have been exposed so far.
I'll grant mr. orange is no statesman. Just like so many others before him weren't, truth be told.
Having seen all the former Presidents you've listed actually doing their job, I never once questioned that loyalties. I didn't care for all their actions but I never thought they may be acting purely out of self-interest.
But do note: He is not out for setting himself up as an autocrat.
He's hinted at it and tried to act as one but ultimately he failed. He's trying to save himself at any cost and if he had the mental capacity to throw democracy aside then he would do it.
He wants to be "famous"
Yes, he has Narcissistic Personality Disorder and loves the trappings of power but scoffs at the responsibilities of it.
He keeps managing to rile up the chorus, which every time makes him only more "famous". I'm fairly sure that in his own mind he's doing splendidly.
He does that to feed his own ego and in a desperate attempt to save himself from this investigation. He fed his ego but ultimately his attempt to save himself failed and may have even backfired.
Removing financial links to politics is the answer.
How do you propose to do that?
Well that's an entire discussion on it's own. Register as a real user and we may be able to chat about it sometime.
You could have given me the, what do you call it, cliff's notes, instead of gloating.
I wasn't gloating but rather just pointing out there are significant differences and it's something you should keep in mind.
You could make a law that allows the barons to unanimously vote the king out, instead of killing him.
Then it's not a king because kings by definition are the ultimate authority and cannot be overruled. Kings are the law. You are grasping at straws.
I don't see it like that. Maybe the left, now rebranded "radical left", was over-represented before and is now sour cut down the overage some.
If you are talking about in the US, then it's factually/mathematically (seriously, look at the population numbers) understood that the right is over-represented in congress.
To be sure, both sides make heavy-handed use of all sorts of propaganda.
If that's the case then it should make sense to re-institute something like the Fairness Doctrine to prohibit profiting from disinformation.
That's a surefire way to maximize bloodshed.
Short term, maybe. Long term, maybe not.
You have really dehumanized them.
I understand this opinion and yes, it's a possibility but I think a better solution is to change them be allowing them to experience our culture and ideas then take it back with them. This is most effective way I know to change the thinking of a population short of genocide.
That really doesn't work. Well, not if you import lots of "guest workers" and then say they'll "integrate while keeping their culture". (For the last 40 or so years that was the mantra here. Still is, officially.)
If they aren't refugees and come en masse then it takes multiple generations for cultural changes to occur. It's not possible to integrate and retain your own culture which means they are isolating themselves. The isolation is what needs to change.
I can tell you the ugly truth is that people's views of reality are being distorted for power and profit. I can tell you both parties (one more than the other) are heavily influenced by corporate "political donations" and it's undermining the will of the people.
I don't see the "one more than the other" part. Some differences in where the money comes from, but there's lots of overlap. Which is really curious and really where the hurt starts.
What matters is that the voice and interests of "mega donors" is drowning out the voice and interests of the people. If we can get rid of that disproportionate influence then it doesn't matter which side is more guilty.
Most I see is that they're really offended to the deepest of their dogma that not only the wrong party won, but the totally wrong guy. To the point of going hysterical. This wasn't how they planned it!
An interesting view but it fails to consider the complete lack of respect for the rule of law. The current President is fundamentally unfit for the job and a wannabe dictator to boot. In all honesty, the guy is very dumb, narcissistic to the core and a total con artist. I'm not going to complain about him being dumb though because if he commanded an intellect then would have been able to make himself into a dictator by now and nullified efforts to investigate his blatant criminality.
distract them from the oligarchs up top getting ever richer from robbing the rest of the country blind. [...] Both wings of the assfant party do that. Look around you.
Yes, I did say part one party was corrupt and other partly corrupt. This is due to the undue influence of moneyed parties. Removing financial links to politics is the answer.
I don't know how it works in the US but here everyone has to have an identity card
You're right you don't know how things work here. There is no national identification system and you don't have to verify someone is in the country legally if it's a private business.
While they (want to) leave the back door to illegal immigrants wide open? Illegal immigrants who don't work legally and therefore to whom minimum wages don't apply. Meaning that what they say they want to do and what they (would) end up doing are quite different things.
Actually, minimum wage applies to all jobs. A person being here legally or not doesn't change that fact. A corporation paying less than minimum wage is in danger of massive fines or possibly jail time thanks to to good people at the IRS.:)
Is it really so hard to believe that some people want to help other people even though it's not financially beneficial?
The point was to show that democracy can be suborned.
Nobody claimed it couldn't be.
Oh, and if you hold elections again once dear leader dies, you technically haven't stopped having elections.
This assumes they will die. This is may not always be true. Just wait until they start raising clones of themselves and claim they are the same person so they never die.;)
There are checks on power by the barons. They might collude and kill the king, too
FTFY. If it's illegal then it's not a check on power by definition. I understand your point but it unleashes "well anyone can kill anyone" and quickly devolves into there are no systems or restrictions because physics allows it.
Suborned democracy doesn't involve the vox populi either, but it pretends to do so. [...] Gerrymandering is a well-known trick, too.
Absolutely, democracy must be maintained by the people. The US currently has a large problem with this but it's slowly being fixed.
You could contend that the feelings of disenfranchisement that causes is what helped mr. orange into power.
Yes and it's funny because they are actually over-represented. Propaganda tells them they are the majority and that their ideal world is being destroyed by "the radical left" (literally anyone that isn't in their party) which greatly raises voter turnout for this minority of people. It would be brilliant if it weren't so evil.
On US voting, btw: Why not do away with the indirection and do a direct vote? (Vote once for as many candidates as you like might be nice.)
Quite simply, it would require those in power to possibly give up power. They only way to overcome this is to change voting at the lowest levels (local elections) and then propagate the changes to higher levels. It's a feedback loop, you cannot make large changes without elected officials willing to make the changes. The current system benefits them and they are taking advantage of it.
I don't know since I have no contact with such contingents (the world is a big place)
These people are something you should really consider when you read about "progressives' character assassination". There is a large contingent in the US that are immune to facts and logic. This is the kind of behavior I'm referring too when I write of "willful ignorance" because they have been conditioned to reject conflicting information without consideration despite evidence.
Westerners will immediately spot the contradictions between the statements and tell the speaker to quit talking bullshit.
You have no idea how much I want this to be true but it's not true at all. When you point out their conflicting logic, their cognitive dissonance causes them to be enraged and quickly sidetrack to a new grievance.
Well, what you take as fact doesn't necessarily strike others as fact. And, as noted previously, sometimes with good reason.
If they have good reason then I will listen to their reason. However, in general their good reason is because the opposition is conspiring to destroy their way of life.:(
Only if you count compsci as a liberal art.;)
Well, it isn't a hard science
I agree! When given a general objective there are innumerable solutions and therefore the outcome is entirely non-deterministic, just like art! So, should I start claiming I'm in liberal arts?:)
Well, erm, letting refugees in far away from home usually means they'll settle and not go back.
Not always but yes, sometimes. If it's where they grew up, at the very least they visit their homes.
Problem is with people who don't use smartphones is that they harass those of us who do. [...] it's nice to have a browser available and a lot of apps do make our lives more efficient and allow us to be more mobile.
I would respect that if all the smartphone users agreed to actually look and listen to other people. Seriously, when I'm talking to someone, eye contact and a real conversation is what I expect. Smartphone users have decided instead to opt for "mhmm..." as they stare at their phone scrolling through their social media feed and then at a break they ask questions about information you just provided ago seconds ago. These smartphone zombies are the worst people because they aren't really there.
It still allows the elite to collude and, say, form effectively a bi-partisan" one party system out of it.
It's true that Democracy in the US needs some improvement in representation, such as ranked voting.
Or allows a guy to get himself elected president, then president-for-life.
once you stop having elections to replace leaders, you stop being a democracy.
That is, democracy by and of itself is not sufficient, for it can itself be subborned.
Absolutely correct. Democracy needs people to maintain it.
You have not shown it is necessary either. Eg. with a vigorous king who regularly chops heads off of his uppity barons so the rest'll keep their heads down (and who otherwise doesn't do much more than give barons jobs to do) you might have decent checks on power as well. Barbaric, yes. Effective, that also. No democracy, yet functional checks on power.
If the barons can be killed on a whim then are not the power, the king is. In your model, there is no check of power on the king.
Because the awfulness is disinformed people like you who do not want to learn but are easily manipulated, not refugees looking to stay alive.
Read: The "progressives" like their labour cheap
If that is true then why are "progressives" also advocating for a higher minimum wage? Do they want cheap labor only to pay them more money?
This is a 70s era sociology department trick: If you agree with it, it's true. If you disagree, it's "relative", or the sayers are "disinformed", or what-have-you.
No, I'm talking about people being fed information that is known to be false under the guise of news but legally protected as "entertainment". Which is to say, they disinform people for profit.
Most of the "progressive" "discussion" consists of criticaster character assassination. I see you, too, lack actual arguments.
How do you argue with someone who obliquely rejects scientific evidence? I'm not saying this as a hypothetical, I'm saying there are a large contingent of individuals who get there information from a single source which is the equivalent of a tabloid. Those tabloids keep hammering home that scientists cannot be trusted and everyone is lying to them. When you present them with factual information, they disregard it as "fake news" and move on to conspiracy theories about it's origin.
If I were unkind I might surmise you're a liberal arts grad.
Only if you count compsci as a liberal art.;)
I don't particularly think a big wall is the ultimate answer. Nor is welcoming as many "refugees" as possible.
I agree, refugee should be a temporary status, not a permanent one. We should work to restore order to their nation of origin and then (gradually) expel them when it's stabilized.
I'm in Europe and my plan would include buying a big chunk of land south of the mediteranean sea, and sending all asylum seekers, refugees, illegal immigrants, together with our "we must do something!" do-gooders there.
If a sufficient government was put in place to ensure their basic human rights were respected then that would be a valid plan.
If we could build a physical barrier could keep your kind of willful ignorance out then I'd help build it myself.
I don't agree that disagreeing with the party line constitutes "wilful ignorance".
The latest wave of anti-immigrant sentiment is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much denial of science and anti-intellectualism that I'm not sure you fully comprehend how bad it is
Socialist DNC decides my vote doesn't count and refuses to fund a wall.
The Republican party has the majority in both the House and the Senate. Right now, all they have to do is vote for it and there is nothing a single Democrat could do to stop it. Hell, they could have voted for that at any point in the last two years.
How is a powerless Democratic minority blocking the wall from being funded... unless there are Republicans who won't vote for it?
Socialism REQUIRES authoritarianism to enforce it. [...] Socialism/communism is based upon FORCED transactions between individuals and business, and therefore REQUIRES authoritarianism (culminating in totalitarianism) to enforce.
You have already proven you are willfully ignorant, there is no extra credit for proving it again. Reading the wikipedia page would be a good start... but only if you are interested in learning the truth.
"late capitalism" is better than "late socialism". You know, after you run out of other people's money. Like the millions fleeing Venezuela have discovered.
False dichotomy and false equivalence. Authoritarianism is what ruins economies, not socialism. Democracy is vital to keeping power in check.
Funny, if the US is so damn bad, why don't "progressives" support building a wall around it to keep people out of the awfulness?
Because the awfulness is disinformed people like you who do not want to learn but are easily manipulated, not refugees looking to stay alive. If we could build a physical barrier could keep your kind of willful ignorance out then I'd help build it myself.
If the plastic is virtually impossible for bacteria to biodegrade, that means it won't be converted into methane or CO2 by bacteria in the landfill, thus guaranteeing that the carbon remains sequestered underground. Where it originally came from.
It's only a matter of time before a strain of bacteria evolves to eat some of the simpler plastics and then the more complex ones too. It would be wise to isolate plastics and makes them into a large monolithic bricks as minimize the surface area exposure. If someone put their mind to it, with the assistance of automation, such a bacteria could be evolved in a decade.
Now there's an idea. If there is a large enough scare about it killing the users then people may actually stop seeking it. However, this doesn't stop poachers from moving onto another animal. A better solution would be to spray certain animals weekly (via drone?) with the malaria virus which is harmless to them but quite harmful and contagious for humans. This would likely wipe out the poachers, the distributors, the end users and everyone around them. If I didn't care about my fellow humans then this would be the ideal solution.
with chemical castration drugs.
That won't work as what you describe is something that needs to be taken daily.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be another ignorant individual. The continental ecosystems and oceanic ecosystems are connected and their is complex interplay between them but honestly, we need the ocean more than the ocean needs us.
Consider this though, as the Earth gets hotter, there will be a mass migration of humans because the regions of arable land are going to shift while others become completely uninhabitable to all but the most extreme lifeforms. Every anti-immigrant reject should be screaming about the threat of global warming. Famine is in the future but it will be a great time for diseases to flourish. It might be that pollution from the human population is brought under control because disease wipes out most of humanity.
Your ecosystem uses CO2 as food...
My ecosystem is carbon neutral. It absorbs and later expels CO2. It's existed for billions of years (in various forms) but has never been in short supply of CO2. However, too much CO2 causes the oceans to become increasingly acidic and the atmosphere to retain too much heat that is disrupting the balanced cycles of life that it enshrines.
Water is absolutely vital for humans to survive but feel free to go drink water until you develop a case of water toxemia. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
This is a CNN story so it is probably fake right?
Only if you get your information from an entertainment network that explicitly dodges liability for it's lies because it's "not a news station" or are gullible enough to believe what a documented compulsive liar tells you.
Since we're no longer subsidizing electric cars, how about we stop subsidizing oil for ICE cars too? How about we stop subsidizing coal too? Putting tons of CO2 into the air is currently 100% environmentally subsidized and that needs to end before it destroys our ecosystem. Instead, people need to start paying so that every gram of CO2 released is also being extracted. It's a market friendly solution to pollution but wouldn't you know it there are people who are against accepting personal responsibility for their own actions.
Stardock constantly assured them that the game they were developing would not.
This is prime example of why you should get things in writing.
Thanks for the info, their claims seem far more legitimate now.
99.9% of all the species ever to exist are extinct. I am pretty sure that every species is "facing extinction."
Sure... but this is the difference between dying of natural causes and being brutally murdered. But hey, keep up the semantics, asshole. ;)
Current change is within the range of natural variation.
Assuming your assertion is true, it's not going to stay in that range much longer. On our current path parts of the planet will become so hot that they will uninhabitable to humans. That's totally out of wack.
The poor sods who wrote this paper will be crushed by the Global Warming maniacs.
Not at all. This aligns perfectly with our existing understanding of Earth. Climate changes slowly over periods hundreds of thousands and millions of years.
The problem with global warming is that the climate is changing in a periods of decades. This is a problem because this does not provide the time required for fauna/flora to evolve. As a result of this decreased period, many species are facing extinction.
It was announced, as of January 3, 2014, that Stardock has started a Star Control reboot, but has no estimation of a release date.[13] The Star Control website and forums have also been relaunched.[14]
It seems to me that if there is a public announcement that you are developing a game that specifically mentions your "IP" and you fail to raise any objections for 4 years then you have failed to enforce your copyright. Only raising objections three months after release is such bullshit.
I don't care if the owners are technically entitled under the law, this is still bullshit.
Ditch that clunky GTK API! I mean, that idiots that made that should be exiled and forced to work on developing a graphics application with it. I bet it would wind up as much as an abomination at GTK! ;)
(psst... hey captain whoosh, GTK was made by GIMP devs for GIMP)
Alright, I'm bored of checking my posts of anon replies. If you want to talk further, register so that I will be notified of replies.
I think you have it all wrong. People have no problem with the Chinese or their culture. The problem people have is with the Chinese government. You act as if you are unaware of their actions.
- they have been suppressing dissent and then hunting down dissidents to jail them
- the re-education prisons that they are putting Muslims into
- the massive video surveillance network they are building out
- the social ranking system they are using keep "undesirables" from traveling or buying things
- let's not forget the organ harvesting program that at first "don't exist" and the later "we don't do that anymore"
- they refuse to allow women to inherit things which is causing the gender ratio to be skewed
I'm not saying all other governments are angels but Chinese government is downright evil. The Chinese people are as much a victim of them as the rest of us.
I needed to show that checks on power can exist without democracy, and that I have done.
Yes, in your imaginary kingdom, it's all peachy alongside all the communist states.
My heart bleeds for the individual but at the same time I recognise that the people(s) have brought that misery on their collective selves, and so they need to sort their shit out to get out of the hole they dug themselves into
Well going along with your twisted experiment, how do you know they won't come out the other side even worse than before? How do you know they will change at all? Frankly, seems like you're simply interested in saying, "it's not my problem, leave me alone" and just reading the news about people being senselessly killed which you don't mind.
If only there was a way to reach all those people cheaply. Like, with electronic messaging devices connected to each other.
You aren't grasping the scale of the issue. If it was so simple then someone would have already done it, don't you think?
Both this lack of respect, and how the other wing didn't show any such lack of respect. I'm pretty sure mr cigar, mr. dubya, and oklahoma bahamas did all sorts of legally questionable things
Not even close. Republicans were itching to impeach Mr. Obama and would have done so given half the chance (almost did when he wore that tan suit :P). Mr. Clinton was impeached because he lied about an affair but it was more about him having an affair. Frankly, I think Richard Cheney is a war criminal and GW Bush was his hapless dope. However, none of them paid hush money during an election, conspire with a foreign nation to defraud the US, tried to profit from the presidency, suborn perjury, obstruct justice and whatever else has been uncovered by the investigation. That's not even the things that should get him impeached, those are just the crimes that have been exposed so far.
I'll grant mr. orange is no statesman. Just like so many others before him weren't, truth be told.
Having seen all the former Presidents you've listed actually doing their job, I never once questioned that loyalties. I didn't care for all their actions but I never thought they may be acting purely out of self-interest.
But do note: He is not out for setting himself up as an autocrat.
He's hinted at it and tried to act as one but ultimately he failed. He's trying to save himself at any cost and if he had the mental capacity to throw democracy aside then he would do it.
He wants to be "famous"
Yes, he has Narcissistic Personality Disorder and loves the trappings of power but scoffs at the responsibilities of it.
He keeps managing to rile up the chorus, which every time makes him only more "famous". I'm fairly sure that in his own mind he's doing splendidly.
He does that to feed his own ego and in a desperate attempt to save himself from this investigation. He fed his ego but ultimately his attempt to save himself failed and may have even backfired.
Removing financial links to politics is the answer.
How do you propose to do that?
Well that's an entire discussion on it's own. Register as a real user and we may be able to chat about it sometime.
You could have given me the, what do you call it, cliff's notes, instead of gloating.
I wasn't gloating but rather just pointing out there are significant differences and it's something you should keep in mind.
You could make a law that allows the barons to unanimously vote the king out, instead of killing him.
Then it's not a king because kings by definition are the ultimate authority and cannot be overruled. Kings are the law. You are grasping at straws.
I don't see it like that. Maybe the left, now rebranded "radical left", was over-represented before and is now sour cut down the overage some.
If you are talking about in the US, then it's factually/mathematically (seriously, look at the population numbers) understood that the right is over-represented in congress.
To be sure, both sides make heavy-handed use of all sorts of propaganda.
If that's the case then it should make sense to re-institute something like the Fairness Doctrine to prohibit profiting from disinformation.
That's a surefire way to maximize bloodshed.
Short term, maybe. Long term, maybe not.
You have really dehumanized them.
I understand this opinion and yes, it's a possibility but I think a better solution is to change them be allowing them to experience our culture and ideas then take it back with them. This is most effective way I know to change the thinking of a population short of genocide.
That really doesn't work. Well, not if you import lots of "guest workers" and then say they'll "integrate while keeping their culture". (For the last 40 or so years that was the mantra here. Still is, officially.)
If they aren't refugees and come en masse then it takes multiple generations for cultural changes to occur. It's not possible to integrate and retain your own culture which means they are isolating themselves. The isolation is what needs to change.
I can tell you the ugly truth is that people's views of reality are being distorted for power and profit. I can tell you both parties (one more than the other) are heavily influenced by corporate "political donations" and it's undermining the will of the people.
I don't see the "one more than the other" part. Some differences in where the money comes from, but there's lots of overlap. Which is really curious and really where the hurt starts.
What matters is that the voice and interests of "mega donors" is drowning out the voice and interests of the people. If we can get rid of that disproportionate influence then it doesn't matter which side is more guilty.
Most I see is that they're really offended to the deepest of their dogma that not only the wrong party won, but the totally wrong guy. To the point of going hysterical. This wasn't how they planned it!
An interesting view but it fails to consider the complete lack of respect for the rule of law. The current President is fundamentally unfit for the job and a wannabe dictator to boot. In all honesty, the guy is very dumb, narcissistic to the core and a total con artist. I'm not going to complain about him being dumb though because if he commanded an intellect then would have been able to make himself into a dictator by now and nullified efforts to investigate his blatant criminality.
distract them from the oligarchs up top getting ever richer from robbing the rest of the country blind.
[...]
Both wings of the assfant party do that. Look around you.
Yes, I did say part one party was corrupt and other partly corrupt. This is due to the undue influence of moneyed parties. Removing financial links to politics is the answer.
I don't know how it works in the US but here everyone has to have an identity card
You're right you don't know how things work here. There is no national identification system and you don't have to verify someone is in the country legally if it's a private business.
While they (want to) leave the back door to illegal immigrants wide open? Illegal immigrants who don't work legally and therefore to whom minimum wages don't apply. Meaning that what they say they want to do and what they (would) end up doing are quite different things.
Actually, minimum wage applies to all jobs. A person being here legally or not doesn't change that fact. A corporation paying less than minimum wage is in danger of massive fines or possibly jail time thanks to to good people at the IRS. :)
Is it really so hard to believe that some people want to help other people even though it's not financially beneficial?
The point was to show that democracy can be suborned.
Nobody claimed it couldn't be.
Oh, and if you hold elections again once dear leader dies, you technically haven't stopped having elections.
This assumes they will die. This is may not always be true. Just wait until they start raising clones of themselves and claim they are the same person so they never die. ;)
There are checks on power by the barons. They might collude and kill the king, too
FTFY. If it's illegal then it's not a check on power by definition. I understand your point but it unleashes "well anyone can kill anyone" and quickly devolves into there are no systems or restrictions because physics allows it.
Suborned democracy doesn't involve the vox populi either, but it pretends to do so. [...] Gerrymandering is a well-known trick, too.
Absolutely, democracy must be maintained by the people. The US currently has a large problem with this but it's slowly being fixed.
You could contend that the feelings of disenfranchisement that causes is what helped mr. orange into power.
Yes and it's funny because they are actually over-represented. Propaganda tells them they are the majority and that their ideal world is being destroyed by "the radical left" (literally anyone that isn't in their party) which greatly raises voter turnout for this minority of people. It would be brilliant if it weren't so evil.
On US voting, btw: Why not do away with the indirection and do a direct vote? (Vote once for as many candidates as you like might be nice.)
Quite simply, it would require those in power to possibly give up power. They only way to overcome this is to change voting at the lowest levels (local elections) and then propagate the changes to higher levels. It's a feedback loop, you cannot make large changes without elected officials willing to make the changes. The current system benefits them and they are taking advantage of it.
I don't know since I have no contact with such contingents (the world is a big place)
These people are something you should really consider when you read about "progressives' character assassination". There is a large contingent in the US that are immune to facts and logic. This is the kind of behavior I'm referring too when I write of "willful ignorance" because they have been conditioned to reject conflicting information without consideration despite evidence.
Westerners will immediately spot the contradictions between the statements and tell the speaker to quit talking bullshit.
You have no idea how much I want this to be true but it's not true at all. When you point out their conflicting logic, their cognitive dissonance causes them to be enraged and quickly sidetrack to a new grievance.
Well, what you take as fact doesn't necessarily strike others as fact. And, as noted previously, sometimes with good reason.
If they have good reason then I will listen to their reason. However, in general their good reason is because the opposition is conspiring to destroy their way of life. :(
Only if you count compsci as a liberal art. ;)
Well, it isn't a hard science
I agree! When given a general objective there are innumerable solutions and therefore the outcome is entirely non-deterministic, just like art! So, should I start claiming I'm in liberal arts? :)
Well, erm, letting refugees in far away from home usually means they'll settle and not go back.
Not always but yes, sometimes. If it's where they grew up, at the very least they visit their homes.
Also, "workin
Problem is with people who don't use smartphones is that they harass those of us who do.
[...]
it's nice to have a browser available and a lot of apps do make our lives more efficient and allow us to be more mobile.
I would respect that if all the smartphone users agreed to actually look and listen to other people. Seriously, when I'm talking to someone, eye contact and a real conversation is what I expect. Smartphone users have decided instead to opt for "mhmm..." as they stare at their phone scrolling through their social media feed and then at a break they ask questions about information you just provided ago seconds ago. These smartphone zombies are the worst people because they aren't really there.
TL;DR: [dis]respect is a two way street.
Democracy is vital to keeping power in check.
This does not appear to be the case.
It still allows the elite to collude and, say, form effectively a bi-partisan" one party system out of it.
It's true that Democracy in the US needs some improvement in representation, such as ranked voting.
Or allows a guy to get himself elected president, then president-for-life.
once you stop having elections to replace leaders, you stop being a democracy.
That is, democracy by and of itself is not sufficient, for it can itself be subborned.
Absolutely correct. Democracy needs people to maintain it.
You have not shown it is necessary either. Eg. with a vigorous king who regularly chops heads off of his uppity barons so the rest'll keep their heads down (and who otherwise doesn't do much more than give barons jobs to do) you might have decent checks on power as well. Barbaric, yes. Effective, that also. No democracy, yet functional checks on power.
If the barons can be killed on a whim then are not the power, the king is. In your model, there is no check of power on the king.
Because the awfulness is disinformed people like you who do not want to learn but are easily manipulated, not refugees looking to stay alive.
Read: The "progressives" like their labour cheap
If that is true then why are "progressives" also advocating for a higher minimum wage? Do they want cheap labor only to pay them more money?
This is a 70s era sociology department trick: If you agree with it, it's true. If you disagree, it's "relative", or the sayers are "disinformed", or what-have-you.
No, I'm talking about people being fed information that is known to be false under the guise of news but legally protected as "entertainment". Which is to say, they disinform people for profit.
Most of the "progressive" "discussion" consists of criticaster character assassination. I see you, too, lack actual arguments.
How do you argue with someone who obliquely rejects scientific evidence? I'm not saying this as a hypothetical, I'm saying there are a large contingent of individuals who get there information from a single source which is the equivalent of a tabloid. Those tabloids keep hammering home that scientists cannot be trusted and everyone is lying to them. When you present them with factual information, they disregard it as "fake news" and move on to conspiracy theories about it's origin.
If I were unkind I might surmise you're a liberal arts grad.
Only if you count compsci as a liberal art. ;)
I don't particularly think a big wall is the ultimate answer. Nor is welcoming as many "refugees" as possible.
I agree, refugee should be a temporary status, not a permanent one. We should work to restore order to their nation of origin and then (gradually) expel them when it's stabilized.
I'm in Europe and my plan would include buying a big chunk of land south of the mediteranean sea, and sending all asylum seekers, refugees, illegal immigrants, together with our "we must do something!" do-gooders there.
If a sufficient government was put in place to ensure their basic human rights were respected then that would be a valid plan.
If we could build a physical barrier could keep your kind of willful ignorance out then I'd help build it myself.
I don't agree that disagreeing with the party line constitutes "wilful ignorance".
The latest wave of anti-immigrant sentiment is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much denial of science and anti-intellectualism that I'm not sure you fully comprehend how bad it is
I vote Trump for president to get a wall.
Yeah, I heard Mexico was going to pay for it.
Socialist DNC decides my vote doesn't count and refuses to fund a wall.
The Republican party has the majority in both the House and the Senate. Right now, all they have to do is vote for it and there is nothing a single Democrat could do to stop it. Hell, they could have voted for that at any point in the last two years.
How is a powerless Democratic minority blocking the wall from being funded... unless there are Republicans who won't vote for it?
Socialism REQUIRES authoritarianism to enforce it. [...] Socialism/communism is based upon FORCED transactions between individuals and business, and therefore REQUIRES authoritarianism (culminating in totalitarianism) to enforce.
You have already proven you are willfully ignorant, there is no extra credit for proving it again. Reading the wikipedia page would be a good start... but only if you are interested in learning the truth.
Would you have been any different when being grilled...
No, I would be just as nervous if I were as guilty as him.
"late capitalism" is better than "late socialism". You know, after you run out of other people's money. Like the millions fleeing Venezuela have discovered.
False dichotomy and false equivalence. Authoritarianism is what ruins economies, not socialism. Democracy is vital to keeping power in check.
Funny, if the US is so damn bad, why don't "progressives" support building a wall around it to keep people out of the awfulness?
Because the awfulness is disinformed people like you who do not want to learn but are easily manipulated, not refugees looking to stay alive. If we could build a physical barrier could keep your kind of willful ignorance out then I'd help build it myself.
If the plastic is virtually impossible for bacteria to biodegrade, that means it won't be converted into methane or CO2 by bacteria in the landfill, thus guaranteeing that the carbon remains sequestered underground. Where it originally came from.
It's only a matter of time before a strain of bacteria evolves to eat some of the simpler plastics and then the more complex ones too. It would be wise to isolate plastics and makes them into a large monolithic bricks as minimize the surface area exposure. If someone put their mind to it, with the assistance of automation, such a bacteria could be evolved in a decade.
The thing is, the horn doesn't work either but people believe it.
Your solution is problematic because most end users don't even know they are ingesting ground up rhino horn.
Poison the horn
Now there's an idea. If there is a large enough scare about it killing the users then people may actually stop seeking it. However, this doesn't stop poachers from moving onto another animal. A better solution would be to spray certain animals weekly (via drone?) with the malaria virus which is harmless to them but quite harmful and contagious for humans. This would likely wipe out the poachers, the distributors, the end users and everyone around them. If I didn't care about my fellow humans then this would be the ideal solution.
with chemical castration drugs.
That won't work as what you describe is something that needs to be taken daily.