World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Jmustang1968]

Considering they have to severely limit any additional weight when launching spacecraft, actually launching any significant amount of weight in garbage out of Earth's atmosphere is not feasible and would be so extremely expensive as to make it totally impractical. Compressed just means more weight in a smaller container.

[MrPopo]

Considering they have to severely limit any additional weight when launching spacecraft, actually launching any significant amount of weight in garbage out of Earth's atmosphere is not feasible and would be so extremely expensive as to make it totally impractical. Compressed just means more weight in a smaller container.

Space elevator. More funding for the materials scientists to make it happen.

[Pulsar_t]

snip

I imagine an EMP strike against earth would render a large portion of humanity without food and medicine (be it production or transportation.) I keep reading the optimal population number of 500 million in paranoid publications..

Let's remember the awful tsunami that took hundreds of thousands of lives was merely over a decade ago. If a few billion people vanished due to catastrophe the rest will carry on one way or another.. You'd be surprised how the species could adapt.

[BoringSupreez]

Funny that the people calling Trump's campaign "fascist" and criticizing his "violent rhetoric" are the ones committing actual violence at his rallies. His rally in Chicago was called off due to a riot organized by Sanders supporters and supported by Black Lives Matter, police had to pepper spray protesters at his Kansas City rally, and a self-described Black Lives Matter activist and Bernie supporter attempted to attack Trump himself during a rally in Ohio. This is ridiculous behavior on the part of Bernie's fans, yet Sanders chose to blame his supporter's actions on Trump's words instead of disavowing those people. Apparently they aren't responsible for their own deeds?

Why is it national news when Trump takes "too long" to disavow David Duke (who is pretty much just an irrelevant has-been kook) but Sanders doesn't need to disavow his violent supporters? If Trump supporters were going to Sanders rallies and shutting them down, would this be acceptable? We'd be hearing non-stop Nazi comparisons on TV if that were to happen. If you were to judge the campaigns by their supporters actions so far, Sander's campaign is the one that represents the Nazis in their early years, attempting to shut down their opposition by force.

[Blu]

Do you have your tinfoil hat on, BoringSupreez? It sure looks like it.

Trump commands the presence of a room, right? He's had plenty of times to make sure that crowd doesn't descend into a mob. Why are you having physical assaults at Trump rallies? Because Trump didn't condemn violence the first several times where the crowd got out of hand. Good luck reeling that in, let alone becoming President.

If you plant the seed, you're responsible for the fruit. There's no way around that. Here are a few noteworthy examples of demagoguery:

"if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."

---

During one interruption, Trump said, "Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do I’ll defend you in court."

"Are Trump rallies the most fun?" he then asked the crowd. "We’re having a good time."

He then recalled an incident at a New Hampshire rally where a protester started "swinging and punching." Trump said some people in the audience "took him out."

"It was really amazing to watch," he said.

----

"See, in the good old days this didn’t use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough. We’ve become very weak."

So no, I refuse your strawman. People have the right to protest that such behavior is accepted and welcomed by Trump at his rallies. He could have been a decent human being and condemned violence. Just like the Marine-hopeful that they recently released, freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequence.

Furthermore, you should be concerned that a candidate is asking you to obey his orders, even if they go against your Oath of Enlistment and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That's not Hitler, that's Mussolini.

[Blu]

I am by no means an expert on tax policy, but IMO, the tax code should be revised in the following ways: (1) remove the limit on the amount of income subject to "payroll" taxes (e.g., social security taxes, medicare taxes, etc.); (2) tax all capital gains and dividend income at the same rate as ordinary income; (3) increase limits on charitable contributions deductions; and (4) reduce the estate tax threshold. I think that these basic changes, in addition to raising more revenue, would make the tax code more "fair" by requiring everyone to pay federal income taxes at <basically> the same rate. (Certainly, the tax code would remain regressive, but these changes would prevent the very wealthy and the highest income earners from paying a lower rate than the rest of the population.)

IMO, these changes would make the tax system more "fair" and, coupled with focused spending on education, infrastructure, and social services, would "level the playing field" in our society a bit. By no means would these changes eliminate all wealth or income disparity, and I don't think that elimination of that disparity should be our society's goal. (IMO, people who are smarter, stronger, more clever, better educated, work harder, etc. deserve to have more.) I think that they would produce a more "fair" society, however, where everyone plays by basically the same rules, which IMO, is the most we can hope for from our government.

This is really a thoughtful post and I appreciate the level of detail you put into it. I agree with all of your points you've shared. I think you've helped separate the financial institutions that have become a staple of Sanders' stump speech, with corporations and the wealthy who have many loopholes to avoid their fair share of taxes.

And I agree that income disparity shouldn't be eliminated entirely, for the reasons that you've outlined. From my understandings of structural and systemic poverty it truly is hard to climb the ladder now, and there is some validity on the pressure it places on the severely impoverished, working poor, and middle class. I think some of the tax code proposals are likely a place we could get at in our lifetime.

Thanks again prfsnl_gmr!

[BoringSupreez]

Do you have your tinfoil hat on, BoringSupreez? It sure looks like it.

Insult right out the door, par the course.

Trump commands the presence of a room, right? He's had plenty of times to make sure that crowd doesn't descend into a mob. Why are you having physical assaults at Trump rallies? Because Trump didn't condemn violence the first several times where the crowd got out of hand. Good luck reeling that in, let alone becoming President.

So because Trump doesn't condemn the violence of his own people (assuming they are violent), that makes it OK for Bernie's people to be violent? I don't see how this follows.

So far, only one Trump supporter has been arrested and charged with violence at one of his rallies, and this is even coming from a very left-leaning source. Bernie's guys already have that beat 4x just from the Chicago rally alone. All of these rallies have tons of videos and picture-taking by both the audience and media. If the other allegations of violence at Trump rallies were true, surely they would be quickly substantiated.

If you plant the seed, you're responsible for the fruit. There's no way around that. Here are a few noteworthy examples of demagoguery:

"if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."

---

During one interruption, Trump said, "Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do I’ll defend you in court."

"Are Trump rallies the most fun?" he then asked the crowd. "We’re having a good time."

He then recalled an incident at a New Hampshire rally where a protester started "swinging and punching." Trump said some people in the audience "took him out."

"It was really amazing to watch," he said.

----

"See, in the good old days this didn’t use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough. We’ve become very weak."

"If you plant the seed, you're responsible for the fruit." Sounds like victim-blaming to me. I don't see how these quotes validate violence. Every one of them is Trump responding to someone else taking the first move, which is legally fine. And as I already said, only one claim of violence by Trump supporters over the course of his campaign has been substantiated.

So no, I refuse your strawman. People have the right to protest that such behavior is accepted and welcomed by Trump at his rallies. He could have been a decent human being and condemned violence. Just like the Marine-hopeful that they recently released, freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequence.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequence? There has never been a nation where people didn't have free speech in the history of man, going by that. Say something negative about Stalin? You had free speech. You're going to the gulag now, but that's the consequence of you exercising your free speech.

I have no idea what freedom of speech means to you if you think violence is an acceptable response.

Furthermore, you should be concerned that a candidate is asking you to obey his orders, even if they go against your Oath of Enlistment and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That's not Hitler, that's Mussolini.

""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed ..."

The UCMJ is too long to quote, obviously, but I see nothing in the oath of enlistment that Trump is planning on violating. Please point out specifically what you mean.

[Blu]

So because Trump doesn't condemn the violence of his own people (assuming they are violent), that makes it OK for Bernie's people to be violent? I don't see how this follows.

Way to twist my statement. If Trump is speaking, and that person tells another person in the crowd that it's okay to commit assault (in the legal definition of the word), then Trump is an accessory to the alleged act. The fact that Trump has not acted in the face of reason and human decency up to this point is why we are now here. No, it's not okay for Bernie's people to be violent. But Trump has cast the first of several stones by failing to act.

If you plant the seed, you're responsible for the fruit. There's no way around that. Here are a few noteworthy examples of demagoguery:

"if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."

---

During one interruption, Trump said, "Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do I’ll defend you in court."

"Are Trump rallies the most fun?" he then asked the crowd. "We’re having a good time."

He then recalled an incident at a New Hampshire rally where a protester started "swinging and punching." Trump said some people in the audience "took him out."

"It was really amazing to watch," he said.

----

"See, in the good old days this didn’t use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough. We’ve become very weak."

"If you plant the seed, you're responsible for the fruit." Sounds like victim-blaming to me. I don't see how these quotes validate violence. Every one of them is Trump responding to someone else taking the first move, which is legally fine. And as I already said, only one claim of violence by Trump supporters over the course of his campaign has been substantiated.

Do you even understand what victim blaming is? I don't think you do. He has sewn the seeds of discourse and demagoguery and normalized hateful rhetoric that breeds violence. He has had the opportunity to maintain a sense of order at his rallies and has failed to do so. The quotes I used, like any speech that Trump gives, are so vague it's often left to the audience to decipher. And unfortunately, when your statements lack clarity, this is how we've gotten to where we are. That violence at a political rally is acceptable. It mirrors so many facets of the civil rights movement, that people who are being civilly disobedient can be assaulted and for a blind eye to be given. Trump is the respondent and alleged perpetrator, not the complainant or alleged victim.

And no, Trump won't cover the legal fees of his supporters who are arrested. Trump only cares about Trump. There's no way he'll keep to that promise. Doing so will mean an admission of responsibility, even in the slightest sense. He'll do his best to backpedal against his previous statements, and cut ties with those he previously promised.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequence? There has never been a nation where people didn't have free speech in the history of man, going by that. Say something negative about Stalin? You had free speech. You're going to the gulag now, but that's the consequence of you exercising your free speech.

I have no idea what freedom of speech means to you if you think violence is an acceptable response.

Freedom of speech guarantees you can speak your own ideas and opinions without fear of retaliation or censorship by the government. So no, you didn't have free speech in the USSR by your definition and example, because the government is reprising you for your speech.

Yes, it was a violation of free speech to have Donald Trump's rally cut off. That's a disgraceful act. So, responsibility needs to be claimed on both ends. Bernie needs to emphasize a message of peaceful assembly and protest. And even if I disagree with Ben Shapiro, he has a right to speak. The KKK has a right to speak. Both without feeling the threat of violence or intimidation. Trump needs to tone back his messages of roughing up protestors.

""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed ..."

The UCMJ is too long to quote, obviously, but I see nothing in the oath of enlistment that Trump is planning on violating. Please point out specifically what you mean.

Yes, I'm glad you know your oath of enlistment. When he asks you and your fellow servicemen to kill families of military combatants, and redefines the legalities of interrogation so that types of torture are now legal, despite violating the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ, that you disobey those unlawful orders. He's said you'll listen and obey.

"Specifically: Donald Trump promised that American soldiers — at the very least — violate Articles 93, 118, and 128 of the UCMJ. Article 93 prohibits 'cruelty and maltreatment,' while Articles 118 and 128 prohibit murder and assault. Moreover, soldiers who actually pull the trigger or who actually beat terrorist detainees aren’t the only ones guilty of a crime. Responsibility runs up and down the chain of command, with each officer or NCO who carried out any aspect of the unlawful order facing legal consequences."

The fact that Donald Trump wants to devolve down to the level of ISIS and go with the eye-for-an-eye approach to dealing with them, will result in a loss of honor and respect for the military. It flies in the face of all conventions of warfighting, especially COIN strategies. That will certainly win over the hearts and minds of citizens of foreign countries who we may go to war with.

[Sarge]

I'm gonna leave this here. The garbage patches are not the size of Texas, nor are they floating garbage masses.

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/ab ... -myth.html

[jp1]

I am embarrassed that Trump is even a candidate, more so that there are people who will support him.

I can't even take a debate about his qualification seriously.