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.
jmurph wrote: Why would Oklahaoma be so hostile to Real-ID when it is clearly supported by conservatives?
I never understood that either...
Missouri is another one of those states who has not implemented Real ID either... 'tis why I made sure that my passport is update to date.
The 2 party system screws up politics here because parties end up taking positions to be diametrically opposed to each other rather than being logically consistent and principals in their positions. The Right and Left oppose different facets of the surveillance state while neither seeks to decrease the intrusiveness they just have their bases trained to be specific in their paranoia. So conservatives are against Real ID because of the Feds mandating state ID standards and the states therefore compiling more comprehensive files on people. This is incongruous with the Republicans' stance in favor of a host of intrusions on the name of "national security."
jasper76 wrote: I'm just concerned with results at this point. Am I going to be able to keep more of my money,
Asking that question in isolation of everyone else's tax burden is not sensible. Ultimately the US spends something north of $3 trillion, so it is going to have to generate revenue of something around $3 trillion. That money has to come from somewhere. Or not, if you're happy to just let the deficit grow at an ever faster rate. And if you're ideologically committed to having the rich pay less, and there's nothing to tax from the poor, and it's political suicide to increase taxes on the middle, that means the only thing we'll see is a tax cut.
Which means, of course, yet another spike in deficits. And I'm going to go out on a limb and predict all the Republicans who were so concerned about debt when Obama came to power will suddenly be happy to slash government revenue with no concern at all for debt growth.
and above all will the tax code be SIMPLE? I shouldn't need to pay H&R Block to decipher the tax code for me when I'm just a middle-class Joe with some managed investments.
Democrats tried a bunch of measures for simplified tax codes. Each of them got beaten rather soundly by lobbying money, with big bucks coming from H&R Block. The simplification we might see will be the removal of some business write offs, which will be offered up as a fig leaf over a massive cut to the corporate tax rate.
Again, I'm really only interested in results now. If I can keep a more of my money, that'd be great. I'm not rich, I work hard for my money, and it'd be super-duper if I could keep more of it.
I really don't care what measures the Dems tried and failed at in the past to simplify the tax code. We have a united government now, and I hope they can succeed where the Democrats failed here. This last part, the simplification of the tax code, IMO should be a completely non-partisan issue. I'd really be content to pay exactly the rate of tax I am now if they would just simplify the code.
jasper76 wrote: I never said he had a "mandate", I said his ideas were put up to a national referendum, and he won.
If you want to think that the Dems don't need to change their platform, go ahead and double down, but don't say I didn't warn you.
NOTE: bowing out of the conversation now...30K awaits
Well you are still wrong. It wasn't a referendum.
I agree with jasper... it pretty much WAS a referendum.
Trump won despite having to overcome the early Establishment GOP, #NeverTrumpers, Democrats and the Fully Armed and Operational Media Guard™.
The people voting for him either don't care for his faults, cheered him on or simply voting 'not-Clinton'.
Actually, didn't he lose the "referendum" by a few million?
Popular vote doesn't matter.
EC vote matters... that's the referendum.
Trumpo has as much 'power' as Obama did on '08 and Reagan in '84.
I was using the term "referendum" loosely. Republicans had a primary election between Trumps platform vs. the old GOP platform. Trumps platform won. Then we all had a general election between Trumps platform and the DNC platform modified with demands from Bernie. Trumps platform again won.
These issues Trump is pursing that are controversial are still controversial, but they should come as no surprise. They are pretty much line by line what Trump ran on and what won him the primary and the general election. That was my main point I was trying to get across. The DNC is opposing the platform that the United States voted Trump in on, so they run the risk of cementing Trump voters in the 'R' column, because in many cases what they are opposing is precisely what Trump voters wanted him to do. So they are in effect opposing the will of the winning voters. But perhaps they really don't care about what Trump voters want...and that's fine, it just may come with a price that you will shut these voters off for a very long time.
Remember, there are many Trump voters, especially in crucial rust belt states, that were once Obama voters. I don't know what kind of future the Dems have in presidential politics without making a sincere effort to win these people back, and that will definitelly take some self-reflection and likely some meaningful platform adjustments.
Or they could double-down, which is fine, it's a choice, but I don't think it will win them back control of the Executive.
Automatically Appended Next Post: All that said, if they can somehow get Bill Gates to run for them...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/10 20:14:00
Steelmage99 wrote: Increased knowledge about our nearest realistically reachable neighbour in the Solar system.
This is why you should send lots of robots. The question is not whether we should do science, it's whether we should waste obscene amounts of payload capacity on carrying some squishy and marginally-useful humans along for the ride.
Aside from that, I don't know. What I do know is that we have seen technological advances come out of space exploration that has had uses in other diverse fields.
Perhaps we develop more efficient engines or agricultural advances or cool new building materials or efficient air-cleaners.........who knows....
This has never been a good argument. If you want agricultural advances or whatever you can dump research effort into that field directly, you don't do space exploration and hope that something you build has other applications. Do space science because it's inherently valuable, not because there's some convoluted "look, NASA made a space pen" argument for it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Automatically Appended Next Post: All that said, if they can somehow get Bill Gates to run for them...
Doubtful that hell run...
He's always been that 'behind the scenes' guy... not firebrand who can 'rally the troops'.
Now... if Will Smith runs...
If D's gotta go with a celeb I want Al Franken. He's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
jasper76 wrote: Remember, there are many Trump voters, especially in crucial rust belt states, that were once Obama voters. I don't know what kind of future the Dems have in presidential politics without making a sincere effort to win these people back, and that will definitelly take some self-reflection and likely some meaningful platform adjustments.
The way to win them back is to convince them that the democrats will do a better job on economic issues, not to embrace Trump's policy. Turning the democrats into another right-wing clown party might appeal to some of Trump's voters, but it would destroy their support from everyone else.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
jasper76 wrote: Remember, there are many Trump voters, especially in crucial rust belt states, that were once Obama voters. I don't know what kind of future the Dems have in presidential politics without making a sincere effort to win these people back, and that will definitelly take some self-reflection and likely some meaningful platform adjustments.
The way to win them back is to convince them that the democrats will do a better job on economic issues, not to embrace Trump's policy. Turning the democrats into another right-wing clown party might appeal to some of Trump's voters, but it would destroy their support from everyone else.
Yeah, the D's economic policy is certainly no worse than the R's (I used to say better in some ways, worse in others but I think that's sort of out the window with Trump). What they lack is good messaging, something the R's excel at.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Would it be crass to suggest that America is now reaping what it has sown? This is what a large majority of Americans voted for - Trump is at least retaining his vile, ignorant, hateful character, so none of the US's current woes should be much of a shock to anyone.
6000 pts
2000 pts
2500 pts
3000 pts
"We're on an express elevator to hell - goin' down!"
"Depends on the service being refused. It should be fine to refuse to make a porn star a dildo shaped cake that they wanted to use in a wedding themed porn..."
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Would it be crass to suggest that America is now reaping what it has sown? This is what a large majority of Americans voted for - Trump is at least retaining his vile, ignorant, hateful character, so none of the US's current woes should be much of a shock to anyone.
Several people (including myself) have mentioned the same. A democracy elects the government it deserves and all that.
Steelmage99 wrote: Increased knowledge about our nearest realistically reachable neighbour in the Solar system.
This is why you should send lots of robots. The question is not whether we should do science, it's whether we should waste obscene amounts of payload capacity on carrying some squishy and marginally-useful humans along for the ride.
Aside from that, I don't know. What I do know is that we have seen technological advances come out of space exploration that has had uses in other diverse fields.
Perhaps we develop more efficient engines or agricultural advances or cool new building materials or efficient air-cleaners.........who knows....
This has never been a good argument. If you want agricultural advances or whatever you can dump research effort into that field directly, you don't do space exploration and hope that something you build has other applications. Do space science because it's inherently valuable, not because there's some convoluted "look, NASA made a space pen" argument for it.
The biggest problem with the idea of sending robots is you assume we have the technology to do so. The field of robotics is for all intents and purposes still in it's infancy. We simply don't have the technology right now to send and rely on robots to do complicated jobs like space exploration and travel otherwise i am reasonably certain we would have done so by now. And something like the Mars rover is essentially just an RC car. That and robots are incredibly expensive compared to humans. And if the robot breaks down, who repairs it? Another robot? And what if that breaks down? At least with humans if they get sick, they self repair to a certain extent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/10 23:38:56
He isn't (for the moment anyway) planning to go to the supreme court to appeal the blocking of the 7 (Muslim)country travel ban
Instead there is talk of a new executive order to accomplish the same things (presumably taking into account the legal reasons they couldn't overturn the block)
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Would it be crass to suggest that America is now reaping what it has sown? This is what a large majority of Americans voted for - Trump is at least retaining his vile, ignorant, hateful character, so none of the US's current woes should be much of a shock to anyone.
"A large majority" isn't really the case. His true supporters are few. The people who will suffer the most didn't vote for him at all. It is the case that the US is reaping what it has sown but the people who did the sowing aren't the common citizenry, it's the political class.
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'".
Looks like you're interpreting "drain the swamp" to fit your needs... 'tis why I've largely ignored snark like these as I took it as "get the current peeps out of there".
But, it really isn't a dismissal... it's more of a call to 'pick your battle wisely'... know what I mean?
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.
It's one thing to forego the President's Salary or any profits derived from foreign leaders staying on his properties... but, I do think it's a bit much to 'give away' rental space, when that's exactly how his business makes its money. Who knows, maybe they'll charge the military for 'at cost' for renting would be a better PR move.
Well, at least you're not leaving any doubts about this whole My Team vs. The Other Team worldview you have...
Dude... I've made my opinions quite clear over Obamacare... have I not?
The whole point of the President's financial arrangements (blind trust and so on) is to obviate any suspicion he is using his office to feather his nest. He hTrump is feathering his nest to the extent that his wife is suing for $150 million of losses because the Daily Mail apparently has bollixed her chance at turning that much profit out of being the First Lady. He's slagged off chain stores who dumped his daughter's shoe brand, etc, blah blah. Trump still refuses to release his tax returns, so we'll never know how much of a profit he is actually turning from the presidency.
If the military buys a property they can sell it later for a profit. If they rent a floor in Trump Tower, they will have to pay Trump's overprices contractors for all the adaptations at the beginning and end of the lease, and have nothing to show for it.
You spent the entire campaign criticising Clinton as the WORST THING EVARRR! and occasionally mentioning that Trump is as bad. Now that Trump actually is in power, doing lots of the rotten things you supposedly thought he would, you are spending all your time approving his actions and defending him against this kind of ethics attack.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Would it be crass to suggest that America is now reaping what it has sown? This is what a large majority of Americans voted for - Trump is at least retaining his vile, ignorant, hateful character, so none of the US's current woes should be much of a shock to anyone.
"A large majority" isn't really the case. His true supporters are few. The people who will suffer the most didn't vote for him at all. It is the case that the US is reaping what it has sown but the people who did the sowing aren't the common citizenry, it's the political class.
I think he's just misusing majority when he means plurality, which is hardly something unique to anyone posting on Dakka. Major news organizations like Faux, CNN, and CBS make the same error fairly often.
Except a large majority of American's did not vote for him, just enough to get an Electoral College win. More people voted for the other candidate. He did win, which is sad in its own way, but as stated we get what we deserve I just don't know why people think a "large majority" voted for him when all evidence says they did not. He is a weak President and lacks a mandate. Still President though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I think he's just misusing majority when he means plurality, which is hardly something unique to anyone posting on Dakka. Major news organizations like Faux, CNN, and CBS make the same error fairly often.
If it is repeated enough and believed at what poi9nt does it stop being a simple mistake and become an outright error or an alternative fact?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 00:02:38
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Except a large majority of American's did not vote for him, just enough to get an Electoral College win. More people voted for the other candidate. He did win, which is sad in its own way, but as stated we get what we deserve I just don't know why people think a "large majority" voted for him when all evidence says they did not. He is a weak President and lacks a mandate. Still President though.
I should have clarified that I meant by the standard of Electoral Votes, not the Popular Vote. Of course, by Trump's own whining and screaming accusations, the EV system is rigged...
6000 pts
2000 pts
2500 pts
3000 pts
"We're on an express elevator to hell - goin' down!"
"Depends on the service being refused. It should be fine to refuse to make a porn star a dildo shaped cake that they wanted to use in a wedding themed porn..."
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Would it be crass to suggest that America is now reaping what it has sown? This is what a large majority of Americans voted for - Trump is at least retaining his vile, ignorant, hateful character, so none of the US's current woes should be much of a shock to anyone.
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'".
Looks like you're interpreting "drain the swamp" to fit your needs... 'tis why I've largely ignored snark like these as I took it as "get the current peeps out of there".
But, it really isn't a dismissal... it's more of a call to 'pick your battle wisely'... know what I mean?
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.
It's one thing to forego the President's Salary or any profits derived from foreign leaders staying on his properties... but, I do think it's a bit much to 'give away' rental space, when that's exactly how his business makes its money. Who knows, maybe they'll charge the military for 'at cost' for renting would be a better PR move.
Well, at least you're not leaving any doubts about this whole My Team vs. The Other Team worldview you have...
Dude... I've made my opinions quite clear over Obamacare... have I not?
The whole point of the President's financial arrangements (blind trust and so on) is to obviate any suspicion he is using his office to feather his nest.
Which is damn near impossible for Trump to do... unless... you have a better idea?
He hTrump is feathering his nest to the extent that his wife is suing for $150 million of losses because the Daily Mail apparently has bollixed her chance at turning that much profit out of being the First Lady.
Eh? Isn't she suing for libel? Or, is this something else?
He's slagged off chain stores who dumped his daughter's shoe brand, etc, blah blah.
Is anyone surprised? Not moi...
Trump still refuses to release his tax returns, so we'll never know how much of a profit he is actually turning from the presidency.
There are financial disclosures he has to file, like all prior presidents. As for the tax returns, those are not nor has ever been a "requirement" for office.
If the military buys a property they can sell it later for a profit. If they rent a floor in Trump Tower, they will have to pay Trump's overprices contractors for all the adaptations at the beginning and end of the lease, and have nothing to show for it.
Buying it would cost waaaaaaaaay more and this is only a temporary 4 year (or at most 8 year) requirement... so renting some space is pragmatici.
You spent the entire campaign criticising Clinton as the WORST THING EVARRR! and occasionally mentioning that Trump is as bad.
I said they would BOTH be bad... for different reasons. We'd be boned, no matter who wins the White House... and I still feel that way. Hence why I voted for the stoner.
Now that Trump actually is in power, doing lots of the rotten things you supposedly thought he would, you are spending all your time approving his actions and defending him against this kind of ethics attack.
Because most of these 'rotten things' are trivial. Yah, he's a no nothing, thin skinned frat boi and I do find them aggravating... but, so far it hasn't caused any 'National Crisis'.
I'm more upset over his shakeup of the National Security Council (Bannon is an official attendee... wtf), and his choice of Gen. Mike Flynn than pretty much anything else.
I give him kudos for picking a solid SCOTUS pick in Neil Gorsuch, Sec. Def Mattis, Sec. State Tillerson, HHS Tom Price, UN Ambassador Haley...
I'm ambivalent on AG Sessions (a big asset forefiture & for-profit-prison honk), but generally okay with him...
The only worthy trainwreck is his Immigration pause to those 7 trouble nations... only because they tripped over their own dicks. At least right now, they're going to moot their litigation and retry drafting the EO...
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Would it be crass to suggest that America is now reaping what it has sown? This is what a large majority of Americans voted for - Trump is at least retaining his vile, ignorant, hateful character, so none of the US's current woes should be much of a shock to anyone.
A minority of Americans voted for Trump.
But Trump won 31 individual state's popular vote contest.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 00:32:20
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: The biggest problem with the idea of sending robots is you assume we have the technology to do so.
I assume correctly, given the number of robot probes we've sent all over the solar system. And it's not like the technology to send humans is anywhere near complete.
That and robots are incredibly expensive compared to humans.
Nope, completely backwards. Robots are incredibly cheap compared to humans in the context of space travel. A human requires life support systems, food, water, other humans to keep them company, extra redundancy to make sure a failure doesn't kill a human, extra fuel for a return trip, extra fuel for a time-efficient instead of fuel-efficient route to the destination, etc. All of these things require obscene amounts of fuel to carry. Then you need more fuel to carry the fuel your human requires. And then more to carry that. And so on into the death spiral. Remember that increases in payload for a rocket result in exponential increases in fuel required, and can quickly exceed the bounds of practical engineering limits.
And if the robot breaks down, who repairs it? Another robot?
Who cares? Since I don't have to waste payload capacity on supporting humans I can just send a dozen more robots so that even if most of them fail I still get the science data I want.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Which is damn near impossible for Trump to do... unless... you have a better idea?
No, it's trivially easy for Trump to do, he just won't do it. He can very easily make his financial information public and donate any income (other than his presidential salary) to charity.
But Trump won 31 individual state's popular vote contest.
Which, as has been explained to you, is both the weird result of an obsolete system that needs to die already and a fact that has nothing to do with the question of who US voters as a whole favored.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: The biggest problem with the idea of sending robots is you assume we have the technology to do so.
I assume correctly, given the number of robot probes we've sent all over the solar system. And it's not like the technology to send humans is anywhere near complete.
That and robots are incredibly expensive compared to humans.
Nope, completely backwards. Robots are incredibly cheap compared to humans in the context of space travel. A human requires life support systems, food, water, other humans to keep them company, extra redundancy to make sure a failure doesn't kill a human, extra fuel for a return trip, extra fuel for a time-efficient instead of fuel-efficient route to the destination, etc. All of these things require obscene amounts of fuel to carry. Then you need more fuel to carry the fuel your human requires. And then more to carry that. And so on into the death spiral. Remember that increases in payload for a rocket result in exponential increases in fuel required, and can quickly exceed the bounds of practical engineering limits.
I'll throw this in right here, as it looks to potentially setting intraplanetary travel on its ear...
If this thing pans out, we're talking a low-fuel powerplant that can increase interbody travel times enough that human relocation is not only possible, but plausible.
And if the robot breaks down, who repairs it? Another robot?
Who cares? Since I don't have to waste payload capacity on supporting humans I can just send a dozen more robots so that even if most of them fail I still get the science data I want.
Just Tony wrote: If this thing pans out, we're talking a low-fuel powerplant that can increase interbody travel times enough that human relocation is not only possible, but plausible.
No we aren't talking about that. The main problem with interplanetary travel is getting in and out of planetary gravity wells, which this does nothing for. If it even works at all, and its physics-breaking result isn't just experimental error.
You might find this delta-V chart informative: http://i.imgur.com/SqdzxzF.png Note that it takes considerably more delta-V to get from the surface of earth into low earth orbit (9.4 km/s) than it does to get all the way to low mars orbit (5.7 km/s) once you're in LEO.
I'm sure humans would have done at least better than that.
Humans would also tend to be somewhat reluctant to go along on a suicide mission to crash into a comet. And for the same cost of sending a human you could send a whole swarm of Rosetta probes to take pictures.
Since I got that off my chest, sure.
Ah yes, the classic "now that I've had the last word we can end the discussion" move...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 01:22:31
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Would it be crass to suggest that America is now reaping what it has sown? This is what a large majority of Americans voted for - Trump is at least retaining his vile, ignorant, hateful character, so none of the US's current woes should be much of a shock to anyone.
"A large majority" isn't really the case. His true supporters are few. The people who will suffer the most didn't vote for him at all. It is the case that the US is reaping what it has sown but the people who did the sowing aren't the common citizenry, it's the political class.
I would actually argue that some of his fiercest supporters will actually be the ones to suffer the most.... I say this because we've seen among his most vocal supporters the poorest, least educated people, as well as the people hurt most by unregulated capitalism. In short, places like McCreary county, Kentucky or Owsley County, Kentucky. That is because McCreary has among the lowest median income in the country, and Owsley County, a county which is 99% white, and has the highest rates of SNAP participation in the entire country.
The people of these counties have strong ties to the political party which, as part of their party plank, is all about fething over the poor people.
6000 pts
2000 pts
2500 pts
3000 pts
