US Politics: 2017 Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AlmightyWalrus**

On the subject of school choice, as someone living in the country Trump supposedly is seeking to copy, it's a good idea on paper that immediately fails because it assumes perfect knowledge and capability across the board. The end result is a segregation of schools into better-performing and worse-performing schools where parents with the time and knowledge to be engaged cluster their children in specific schools. We've already tried it and are stubbornly clinging to it for ideological reasons, please don't feth up the way we did.

**reds8n**

... so back to the moon then maybe ?

One has a slightly depressing feeling there's , possibly, more military applications also at play here than we'd like, but it's probably a bit naive to think that the military space race isn't far more advanced/whatever than we think anyway.

**d-usa**

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/white-house-employee-ensures-trump-doesn-t-hacked-222351743.html

But her unsecured emails!

**A Town Called Malus**

reds8n wrote:
... so back to the moon then maybe ?

One has a slightly depressing feeling there's , possibly, more military applications also at play here than we'd like, but it's probably a bit naive to think that the military space race isn't far more advanced/whatever than we think anyway.

About time too. Wonder what rocket stages they're going to use. Apparently Airbus is building a new module but will that be designed to just replace the lunar and command modules on the Saturn V? After all the Saturn V remains the current king of launch systems when it comes to total payload it can carry and modern computers are a lot smaller and lighter than their 60s counterparts.

Though with a 50 year deadline, that's plenty of time to develop a new rocket. Just closing the cycle on the F-1 engine would probably be enough to ensure the domination of the Saturn design for the foreseeable future.

**d-usa**

Glad that the US is able to deal by example:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-defiant-assad-tells-yahoo-news-torture-report-is-fake-news-100042667.html

"Fake news"...

**Co'tor Shas**

So, more adventures in reddit politics, I just want to share a conversation with you guys. This is what we are dealing with here.

poster A: Bet a million dollars the 9th circus loses this.

poster B: And which of the liberal justices do you think will side with the President who insulted the integrity of the court system and makes a mockery of his own office?

poster C: this is exactly why he, and many others are criticizing them, judges are supposed to rule on the law, not their fee fees

poster D: I'd doubt any conservative justices would allow for such an atrocity to be committed either. Considering the appeal rejection was decided by a judge appointed by bush. So i'd say this is a largely apolitical ruling since it's so fething blatant.

poster E: "ITS JUST OBVIOUS OMG"
Bush is a Leftist Authoritarian. His friends being Leftist Authoritarians doesn't surprise me.

poster D: I'm really proud of you, the overton window has moved so far into the nazi corner that you believe everyone >2 centimetres to the left is a leftist.
edit: holy gak your post history is literally you calling everybody a leftist, or a lefty, wow.

poster F: Nazis advocated political correctness, vast centralized govt control, and rioting. Notice how that sounds like today's leftists? They also admired US Progressives like Wilson and Sanger.
This is history, but the fascists are back as 'antifascists' intent on cleansing the world of 'hate speech'.

This is it guys, Nazis are actually progressives and Bush was a lefty! I'm not sure whether or laugh or cry at this point.

**Herzlos**

Did anything come of Trump insisting that the military rented a $1.5m floor of Trump Tower so that they'd be closer to him when he was in NYC?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/white-house-employee-ensures-trump-doesn-t-hacked-222351743.html

But her unsecured emails!

I guess Trump doesn't need to worry too much about hacking when he's talking direct to Putin anyway.

**Peregrine**

reds8n wrote:
... so back to the moon then maybe ?

The real question here is why. And there doesn't seem to be much of a compelling reason, besides "it's cool" and nationalistic flag-planting.

**A Town Called Malus**

Peregrine wrote:
reds8n wrote:
... so back to the moon then maybe ?

The real question here is why. And there doesn't seem to be much of a compelling reason, besides "it's cool" and nationalistic flag-planting.

It's a collaboration with ESA.

And it will probably form the beginnings of a joint agency manned mission to Mars.

**Peregrine**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
And it will probably form the beginnings of a joint agency manned mission to Mars.

Again, why? What purpose is there in a manned mission to Mars, other than nationalistic flag-planting?

**jmurph**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
So, more adventures in reddit politics, I just want to share a conversation with you guys. This is what we are dealing with here.

poster A: Bet a million dollars the 9th circus loses this.

poster B: And which of the liberal justices do you think will side with the President who insulted the integrity of the court system and makes a mockery of his own office?

poster C: this is exactly why he, and many others are criticizing them, judges are supposed to rule on the law, not their fee fees

poster D: I'd doubt any conservative justices would allow for such an atrocity to be committed either. Considering the appeal rejection was decided by a judge appointed by bush. So i'd say this is a largely apolitical ruling since it's so fething blatant.

poster E: "ITS JUST OBVIOUS OMG"
Bush is a Leftist Authoritarian. His friends being Leftist Authoritarians doesn't surprise me.

poster D: I'm really proud of you, the overton window has moved so far into the nazi corner that you believe everyone >2 centimetres to the left is a leftist.
edit: holy gak your post history is literally you calling everybody a leftist, or a lefty, wow.

poster F: Nazis advocated political correctness, vast centralized govt control, and rioting. Notice how that sounds like today's leftists? They also admired US Progressives like Wilson and Sanger.
This is history, but the fascists are back as 'antifascists' intent on cleansing the world of 'hate speech'.

This is it guys, Nazis are actually progressives and Bush was a lefty! I'm not sure whether or laugh or cry at this point.

And that's why you stay out of reddit politics.

But the "liberals/progressives are the real Nazis" schtick isn't a new thing. They will spout that even as they advocate authoritarianism, shaming/imprisoning/killing those who disagree with them, make disparaging comments about women/minorities/anything not white male, etc. It's been pretty shameless for a long time. Now they just feel more comfortable openly spouting their nonsense.

**NinthMusketeer**

"It is easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than fit a rich man through the gates of heaven."

In other news, lol @ Trump's 'security at risk' all caps tweet... Yeah, because the domestic terrorism problem with people from those countries was so rampant before the ban.

**Just Tony**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

In exercise POTUS, on twitter. All caps are from the original. President All Caps.

The situation in France is pretty bad on a number of respect (we are getting the banana republic version of “State of Emergency”, the one that stays on for decades), but even if things take a turn for the worse, even if we elect Marine Le Pen in the upcoming election, at least we'll still be way above the US. Also if it gets too bad I'll just leave for Switzerland, which hopefully won't turn stupid anytime soon .

I gave up on France with the drama of banning the Down Syndrome advertisement, I can't imagine their government is heading anywhere back from that. Progress moves forward even if a bad step is made.

Peregrine wrote:
reds8n wrote:
Up next how the healing of the sick and feeding of the 5 thousand actually show strong support for the 2nd amendment.

Nah, it'll be about how the healing of the sick and feeding of the five thousand mean that gay marriage is evil and all the filthy sinners will burn in hell unless they repent. AFA can't let that go.

And this sort of post, which is light compared to your typical anti-Christian rants, is why Frazz and I made those comments earlier. Isn't prejudice against a group still prejudice against a group, no matter the reason?

**Peregrine**

Just Tony wrote:
And this sort of post, which is light compared to your typical anti-Christian rants, is why Frazz and I made those comments earlier. Isn't prejudice against a group still prejudice against a group, no matter the reason?

It isn't prejudice to point out AFA's obsession with homosexuality (and sexual "sin" in general), they proudly state it themselves. What you said makes about as much sense as complaining that it's "prejudice" to criticize Trump for being too concerned with building his border wall.

Edit: you are aware of who the AFA are, right?

**A Town Called Malus**

Peregrine wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
And it will probably form the beginnings of a joint agency manned mission to Mars.

Again, why? What purpose is there in a manned mission to Mars, other than nationalistic flag-planting?

The technology for a manned mission (which requires the transport of a larger payload) will also allow for the return to earth of larger samples from the surface Mars, be it from manned or future unmanned missions, which will allow more investigation on those samples, improving our understanding of the composition of Mars and how it got that way.

For example we could land a core drilling mission, allowing us to take core samples of the Martian surface to identify how the magnetic field of Mars evolved over time which could improve our understanding of how planetary cores evolve towards the end of their dynamical life. That could give us a greater understanding of what physical processes drive the cores of planets and potentially give us a more accurate prediction of the lifetime of our own planetary magnetic field.

**Peregrine**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
The technology for a manned mission will also allow for the return to earth of larger samples from the surface Mars, which will allow more investigation on those samples, improving our understanding of the composition of Mars and how it got that way.

No it won't. The technology for a larger robot mission will allow this. Adding humans to the mission looks increasingly like a complete waste of payload capacity. They're heavy, require heavy life support equipment and consumable supplies, require throwing away even more payload capacity on making the spacecraft safe enough to risk putting humans on it, require inefficient trajectories between planets that favor speed (to avoid running out of all that heavy life support stuff) over fuel efficiency, and then repeat all that waste of payload capacity on the return trip. The capabilities of robots will only improve, and it's difficult to see any reason besides nationalistic flag-planting for sending a single manned mission instead of a vastly more capable horde of robots.

For example we could land a core drilling mission, allowing us to take core samples of the Martian surface to identify how the magnetic field of Mars evolved over time which could improve our understanding of how planetary cores evolve towards the end of their dynamical life.

This can be done with robots. I'd rather have ten different robot core drilling missions landing in different places, with 10x redundancy in case one mission fails, than a single manned mission with some humans along to press the buttons.

**Easy E**

I'm calling a Le Pen victory in France now. it is on the record.

As for American politics, any updates on the DNC Chairmanship election?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/315003-dems-engage-in-friendly-debate-for-dnc-chair

It sounds like they are all pretty much agreed about what to do going forward, so no matter who wins it will be the same strategy going forward.

**A Town Called Malus**

Peregrine wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
The technology for a manned mission will also allow for the return to earth of larger samples from the surface Mars, which will allow more investigation on those samples, improving our understanding of the composition of Mars and how it got that way.

No it won't. The technology for a larger robot mission will allow this. Adding humans to the mission looks increasingly like a complete waste of payload capacity. They're heavy, require heavy life support equipment and consumable supplies, require throwing away even more payload capacity on making the spacecraft safe enough to risk putting humans on it, require inefficient trajectories between planets that favor speed (to avoid running out of all that heavy life support stuff) over fuel efficiency, and then repeat all that waste of payload capacity on the return trip. The capabilities of robots will only improve, and it's difficult to see any reason besides nationalistic flag-planting for sending a single manned mission instead of a vastly more capable horde of robots.

For example we could land a core drilling mission, allowing us to take core samples of the Martian surface to identify how the magnetic field of Mars evolved over time which could improve our understanding of how planetary cores evolve towards the end of their dynamical life.

This can be done with robots. I'd rather have ten different robot core drilling missions landing in different places, with 10x redundancy in case one mission fails, than a single manned mission with some humans along to press the buttons.

If that is the case then why do we have humans on the ISS rather than robots?

A human can complete many more and varied tasks than a remote controlled machine and is more capable of adapting to unexpected issues than a robot.

Also, any manned mission to Mars will likely take both humans and robots. The humans can ensure that the robots don't run into issues whilst performing other scientific experiments and acquiring data. Plus, controlling a remote controlled sample return mission is a pretty complicated affair as it requires the collection, storage, loading and then launch of the sample off of the surface of mars to then rendezvous with the orbiting module to bring the sample back to Earth, all while you are controlling that with a time delay and whenever the spacecraft is out of communication (like on the opposite side of the planet) you have absolutely no control over the spacecraft.

**Peregrine**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
If that is the case then why do we have humans on the ISS rather than robots?

Vanity mostly, and the fact that robots aren't quite there yet. But we're getting to the point where humans on the ISS don't make much sense.

A human can complete many more and varied tasks than a remote controlled machine and is more capable of adapting to unexpected issues than a robot.

Sure, but they also cost exponentially more (in physical payload capacity and financially) to send. You have much less need for these things when you have several different specialized robots, and several backups for each in case anything unexpected happens.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
The humans can ensure that the robots don't run into issues whilst performing other scientific experiments and acquiring data.

They actually have very little ability to do this. A human can't do much without repair parts, and if you're wasting payload capacity on humans and complete backup robot systems to use for repairs you might as well just send a dozen copies of the robot.

Plus, controlling a remote controlled sample return mission is a pretty complicated affair as it requires the collection, storage, loading and then launch of the sample off of the surface of mars to then rendezvous with the orbiting module to bring the sample back to Earth, all while you are controlling that with a time delay and whenever the spacecraft is out of communication (like on the opposite side of the planet) you have absolutely no control over the spacecraft.

This is the kind of thing that robots are only going to get better and better at. Sure, there might still be that small chance of failure, but would you rather have one super-reliable sample return mission with a human on-site overseeing the whole process or ten different robotic sample missions, each with a 10% chance of failure? You can get awfully generous with the failure rates of robots and still come out way ahead of the humans.

**A Town Called Malus**

Considering the costs of spaceflight (and considering that failed missions will often result in a load of junk floating around in space which can pose problems to future missions), I'd go with the one super reliable one.

**Peregrine**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Considering the costs of spaceflight, I'd go with the one super reliable one.

Then you have it backwards. Remember, each single mission is not going to be equal in cost. The super-reliable manned mission is going to cost significantly more than a robot mission. In the hypothetical example you're spending the same $X for the total program costs, but you have a choice between 0.9999999999999999 successful sample return missions (on average) from the manned mission, or 9 successful sample return missions (and one complete failure) from the robots.

**Just Tony**

Peregrine wrote:
Just Tony wrote:
And this sort of post, which is light compared to your typical anti-Christian rants, is why Frazz and I made those comments earlier. Isn't prejudice against a group still prejudice against a group, no matter the reason?

It isn't prejudice to point out AFA's obsession with homosexuality (and sexual "sin" in general), they proudly state it themselves. What you said makes about as much sense as complaining that it's "prejudice" to criticize Trump for being too concerned with building his border wall.

Edit: you are aware of who the AFA are, right?

You've never differentiated before, examine your post history.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
The technology for a manned mission will also allow for the return to earth of larger samples from the surface Mars, which will allow more investigation on those samples, improving our understanding of the composition of Mars and how it got that way.

No it won't. The technology for a larger robot mission will allow this. Adding humans to the mission looks increasingly like a complete waste of payload capacity. They're heavy, require heavy life support equipment and consumable supplies, require throwing away even more payload capacity on making the spacecraft safe enough to risk putting humans on it, require inefficient trajectories between planets that favor speed (to avoid running out of all that heavy life support stuff) over fuel efficiency, and then repeat all that waste of payload capacity on the return trip. The capabilities of robots will only improve, and it's difficult to see any reason besides nationalistic flag-planting for sending a single manned mission instead of a vastly more capable horde of robots.

For example we could land a core drilling mission, allowing us to take core samples of the Martian surface to identify how the magnetic field of Mars evolved over time which could improve our understanding of how planetary cores evolve towards the end of their dynamical life.

This can be done with robots. I'd rather have ten different robot core drilling missions landing in different places, with 10x redundancy in case one mission fails, than a single manned mission with some humans along to press the buttons.

If that is the case then why do we have humans on the ISS rather than robots?

A human can complete many more and varied tasks than a remote controlled machine and is more capable of adapting to unexpected issues than a robot.

Also, any manned mission to Mars will likely take both humans and robots. The humans can ensure that the robots don't run into issues whilst performing other scientific experiments and acquiring data. Plus, controlling a remote controlled sample return mission is a pretty complicated affair as it requires the collection, storage, loading and then launch of the sample off of the surface of mars to then rendezvous with the orbiting module to bring the sample back to Earth, all while you are controlling that with a time delay and whenever the spacecraft is out of communication (like on the opposite side of the planet) you have absolutely no control over the spacecraft.

We went through this automate everything drivel in older versions of this thread, with one side assured that all labor would be automated in our lifetime and the other side, which deals with automation in production, calling it a pipe dream. The goal is to eventually spread humanity from this planet to other colonies on other celestial bodies, kind of hard to do that if our far asses are sitting on a computer or XBox while robots do everything.

**tneva82**

Peregrine wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
The technology for a manned mission will also allow for the return to earth of larger samples from the surface Mars, which will allow more investigation on those samples, improving our understanding of the composition of Mars and how it got that way.

No it won't. The technology for a larger robot mission will allow this. Adding humans to the mission looks increasingly like a complete waste of payload capacity. They're heavy, require heavy life support equipment and consumable supplies, require throwing away even more payload capacity on making the spacecraft safe enough to risk putting humans on it, require inefficient trajectories between planets that favor speed (to avoid running out of all that heavy life support stuff) over fuel efficiency, and then repeat all that waste of payload capacity on the return trip. The capabilities of robots will only improve, and it's difficult to see any reason besides nationalistic flag-planting for sending a single manned mission instead of a vastly more capable horde of robots.

And how you will learn how to send humans into space efficiently before it's essential if you don't ever send them? Sooner or later humans have to go there. I would prefer humans start working on it before there's no time to waste.

**kronk**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

If that is the case then why do we have humans on the ISS rather than robots?

Humans on the ISS run all kinds of experiments, many funded by corporations. My company was looking into a project with them recently, but I believe that fell through.

Many/all of the modules being sent up require human interraction for setting up samples, running the apparatus, measuring results and reporting findings.

Could it be done by a robot? Maybe, if you spent 20 years making a robot to test that one thing just so, without fail (until it fething breaks). OR, you can send up 10 different modules (1 every other year) as you fine tune and refine your tests and experiments based on previous results.

There are a lot of applications for zero G testing. Some of it may just have a "ooh, cool." factor, but for many industries, the science is quite useful, including future space travel, colonization, the effects of years of exposure to zero gravity, and so forth.

**Peregrine**

Just Tony wrote:
You've never differentiated before, examine your post history.

WTF are you talking about? My original post on this explicitly said "AFA is bad". I have no idea where you're getting this idea that I'm abusing all the poor Christians and not differentiating between the various groups.

We went through this automate everything drivel in older versions of this thread, with one side assured that all labor would be automated in our lifetime and the other side, which deals with automation in production, calling it a pipe dream. The goal is to eventually spread humanity from this planet to other colonies on other celestial bodies, kind of hard to do that if our far asses are sitting on a computer or XBox while robots do everything.

"Spreading humanity" through colonization is wishful thinking that belongs in science fiction, not a viable space exploration plan in the foreseeable future. There's essentially zero practical benefit, and costs and engineering difficulties that are almost unimaginable in scale.

Also, your complaint about "automate everything drivel" is missing the fact that, in a space exploration context, the costs are completely reversed. Robots are cheap, and humans are incredibly specialized and obscenely expensive tools. If a common factory worker required a $1 billion/year salary, another $1 billion/year in operating expenses, and an entire support staff of engineers working 24/7 to keep the factory worker functioning, well, I think factories would find a way to deal with the problems of automation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
And how you will learn how to send humans into space efficiently before it's essential if you don't ever send them? Sooner or later humans have to go there. I would prefer humans start working on it before there's no time to waste.

Why do humans ever have to go into space? There's no conceivable situation where it is mandatory, at least on the time scales of human civilization.

**whembly**

Herzlos wrote:
Did anything come of Trump insisting that the military rented a $1.5m floor of Trump Tower so that they'd be closer to him when he was in NYC?

Military isn't renting the whole floor (that's where the estimated 1.5m figure came from)... they'll be renting a portion of that.

Even though I think they *should* rent the whole damn floor for security purposes...

It's no difference when government services buy land near Bush's ranch / renting Biden's guest home / I think they bough a neighboring house near Obama in S. Chicago.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
reds8n wrote:
... so back to the moon then maybe ?

The real question here is why. And there doesn't seem to be much of a compelling reason, besides "it's cool" and nationalistic flag-planting.

Newt's Moon Colony!

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
It's no difference when government services buy land near Bush's ranch / renting Biden's guest home / I think they bough a neighboring house near Obama in S. Chicago.

No, there's a rather significant difference in that the other cases didn't involve the president collecting the rent like Trump is.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
It's no difference when government services buy land near Bush's ranch / renting Biden's guest home / I think they bough a neighboring house near Obama in S. Chicago.

No, there's a rather significant difference in that the other cases didn't involve the president collecting the rent like Trump is.

I get it looks weird... but this is small potatoes.

Otherwise, you'd be advocating Trump to move out of his home.

**WrentheFaceless**

Peregrine wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
And it will probably form the beginnings of a joint agency manned mission to Mars.

Again, why? What purpose is there in a manned mission to Mars, other than nationalistic flag-planting?

Not all discovery is for purpose or for monetary gain.

**Peregrine**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Not all discovery is for purpose or for monetary gain.

And humans are really inefficient at discovering things in space compared to robots. I'm in favor of sending lots of science missions to discover things, I'm incredibly skeptical that putting humans on these missions adds anything but the opportunity to plant a flag.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
I get it looks weird... but this is small potatoes.

I see this is the "drain the swamp" attitude at work. How quickly it becomes "corruption and conflicts of interest by My Team are ok, as long as I can dismiss them as 'small potatoes'".

Otherwise, you'd be advocating Trump to move out of his home.

Uh, what? That doesn't even make any sense. Trump could simply avoid the conflict of interest by not charging rent for the space the government needs to use.