Vote for Trump

[tp4tissue]

Not to be harsh dude, but if you talk like that around women as well, it's not that they don't understand you it's probably that they dont like you =/

/hahahaha

You're so wrong..

Change the wording.. say the exact same thing..  they love me..

[fohat.digs]

The political masters use the whole two-sided debate in this country to herd voters into corners over mostly trivial issues, and then just use your vote to advance their own agenda.

Excellent 1-sentence description of the post-1970s political landscape in the US.

[dantan]

I think Trump has been judged unfairly. He has barely taken office and there are these fierce and emotional demonstrations about how evil he is. Even Madonna is recommending (to an audience of millions) blowing up the White House.

Everyone has flaws. One black Trump supporter pointed out that while Trump is racist, he didn’t think Trump was any more racist than most white people. Trump is just less sophisticated and unskilled with using politically correct paens to hide his inner prejudices. Thus he is seen as more honest than Hillary because he is very poor at hiding his flaws and inconsistencies.

For all the negative things about his real estate business excluding blacks, it’s also true that Trump was the first person to desegregate his Mar-a-Lago resort. Everyone else in the area refused blacks and Jews. Trump openly welcomed them.

A former employee, Barbara Res, said that Trump basically ‘profiled, but didn’t discriminate’. He definitely held prejudices, but when it came to business, he did business with anyone. He hired plenty of Mexicans in his hotels. He didn’t really respect women as a category and shamelessly lusted after them, but when it came to work he was work-minded. The picture I get of Trump is that he’s really more of a boor than a psychopath or ideologue. He’s not out to deliver anyone a world of hurt, or to impose a religion and way of life on others. He’s like a lot of real estate developers and building contractors, macho seeming guys who puff themselves up like cockatoos.

In any ordinary circumstance, Trump would be a very poor choice for the White House. However the world is now in a state of transition. The old elites who got rich from globalization have no answer to the many people structurally out of work or disadvantaged by globalization. They just keep preaching more free trade and more migration.

There is a real American carnage going on. Vast sections of continental America have been hollowed out economically thanks to free market competition from China.

It is glib and dishonest for the coastal-based liberals to just say, well, get out of town and migrate then!

You’re asking people to uproot themselves in the millions from their families and towns and massively migrate to where the jobs are.

If 20 million people moved out of the Midwest and Rust Belt, 4 million would go to NYC, 3 million to LA, 1 million each to Houston and Chicago and Atlanta. Housing costs and infrastructure pressures would skyrocket. A new white urban underclass, drug abusing and discontented, would pop up. Many people would turn to religion for comfort and vote Republican. And tell me the libs won’t be hating on them?

Because no one would champion their cause, many of the declining white middle class voted Trump.

I don’t know if Trump can deliver. But if he delivers, I think America, and American democracy, would be much better off. Before you start getting into some global ideal of admitting all Mexicans or Muslims who want to enter the USA, you need to make sure your own citizens are doing fine. Athenian democracy took care of Athenians first. Venetian Republic took care of Venetian interests first. USA needs to start taking care of its own people before it tries to be some sort of global examplar. The decline of the US middle class is NOT good for democracy.

Trump the populist is a lot less dangerous than someone like Hitler or Mussolini or Mao or Stalin. Unlike these four dictators, Trump is not tied to any ideology. History has shown that people tied to ideologies are the most likely to do the worst things because they are deluded by their religion and their ideology. Trump may be slow to recognize that he has done something wrong, but once he sees it, he can change.

I don’t believe in giving Trump 4 years. But 1.5 years is fine, until the campaigning starts for the Midterm elections. If the Republicans have been pragmatic and truly patriotic in their policymaking, they will deserve reelection and strengthen their majority in Congress. If the Republicans have focused their energy on religion in schools and other measures that don’t take care of the Middle Class, they will lose their majority and Congress will have a deadlock.

Problem is, Republican party is too full of ideologues. The swamp monsters. USA needs more fresh blood not tied to established interests. All the old idiots in Congress need to get out. John Lewis needs to understand that his heroics 50 years ago are not relevant as a selling point for reelection in 2018. You need more energetic, engaged and intelligent people like Cory Booker, and less geriatrics resting on their laurels.

[kurplop]

I think that Trump's pro-business pro-labor policies will help the struggling working class some, but automation is a more threatening trend for the American worker.

Any thoughts on how we deal with the vast number of people who will no longer be needed in tomorrow's world?

[fohat.digs]

the vast number of people who will no longer be needed in tomorrow's world?

By far the biggest problem for the entire planet Earth is overpopulation.

I believe that the number of humans on the planet is already an order of magnitude too great.

All other problems are magnified through this lens. Middle America is merely a microcosm of the greater whole.

[alienman82]

removed.

[kurplop]

Fohat—Agreed, over-populaton is a problem but I'm not sure that addresses the problem of surplus labor. If we have 4 billion people instead of 8 billion, it would largely  leave the same percentage of people unnecessary to run a heavily automated society. I'm reminded of the blobs of dystopic humanity in the movie WALL-E.

Granting that we should reduce population, how would we do it? Education? Limiting numbers of children to parents? Stopping humanitarian aid to underdeveloped nations? Extermination of undesirable elements? Euthanization for people at the first sign of geriatric disease? WW3?  This is not not meant as a rhetoric. A less populated Earth makes sense.  I'm just not sure how to do it without a callous disregard for others autonomy or well being.

Ultimately, the questions that must be asked will have to include the value and purpose of the individual.

[dantan]

As always, the people who can least afford to support their children, have the most of such children.

The poorest, most messed up countries are the ones who have the highest birthrates, after which they demand for aid, prey on others' shipping, or simply send out their excess population to others as refugees.

There is no liberal answer to this.

We know the right wing answer to this, and it isn't pretty either.

[fohat.digs]

"Trump just announced his pick for FCC Chairman, and it's Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer and the absolute worst case scenario for net neutrality.

Pai is a guy who said after Trump was elected that the neutrality's "days are numbered" and that he would "fire up the weed whacker" to gut protections like the open internet rule."

- Kurt Walters 2017

[Parak]

As always, the people who can least afford to support their children, have the most of such children.

The poorest, most messed up countries are the ones who have the highest birthrates, after which they demand for aid, prey on others' shipping, or simply send out their excess population to others as refugees.

There is no liberal answer to this.

That's a bit of odd statement. Why do you think that there's no liberal answer? This is something that has been extensively studied for decades, and has innumerable publications and statistics. Surely somewhere in there is at least one proposal that has some sort of a liberal lean to it.

We know the right wing answer to this, and it isn't pretty either.

I'm interested in hearing it, as I don't know it, or don't know the specific answer being discussed. I can think of multiple possible answers that lean right to some extent or other, but I don't want to presume.

[MandrewDavis]

"Trump just announced his pick for FCC Chairman, and it's Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer and the absolute worst case scenario for net neutrality.

Pai is a guy who said after Trump was elected that the neutrality's "days are numbered" and that he would "fire up the weed whacker" to gut protections like the open internet rule."

- Kurt Walters 2017

Interesting read from a Forbes Contributor; Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality?

I feel like I am getting conflicting information this, trying to understand if him as chairman will be a good move (or not) for net neutrality. 

[tp4tissue]

As always, the people who can least afford to support their children, have the most of such children.

The poorest, most messed up countries are the ones who have the highest birthrates, after which they demand for aid, prey on others' shipping, or simply send out their excess population to others as refugees.

There is no liberal answer to this.

We know the right wing answer to this, and it isn't pretty either.

You have a wrong outlook on Children..

What we need is MORE KIDS,  regardless of who they come from..


People have the wrong comprehension of money.. 

IN truth the strength and wealth of a nation is in its population, the bigger the better, Period..


Look at japan... They have virtually infinite money just like the USA,  but they're on steep decline, because they have no god damn kids..


Once people have money, they become deadened to the natural responsibility (as living organisms) to procreate..  They want television, they want entertainment, they want luxuries, they want alcohol, they want drugs...


It is the rich that is closer to oblivion...   it's a good thing that there are so few of them..

[tp4tissue]

Who becomes soldiers.. who cleans up the streets..  who builds the streets... who puts hammer to natural resources..


The middle and rich classes command those things..   but hand to rock is done by the poor..


The wars of today and future require a class of humans without the opportunity to say no..


They are of the greatest importance to every nation and every society..


We don't frame people this way, because it sounds awful,  but it's just a consequence of how humans organize..

[tp4tissue]

"Trump just announced his pick for FCC Chairman, and it's Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer and the absolute worst case scenario for net neutrality.

Pai is a guy who said after Trump was elected that the neutrality's "days are numbered" and that he would "fire up the weed whacker" to gut protections like the open internet rule."

- Kurt Walters 2017

You don't have to worry about this.. because google has more money than god..  They also control the majority of what people see on the internet..

So no matter what person you put in the way of net neutrality,  it will not be enough to influence a core movement on data..

[dantan]

"Trump just announced his pick for FCC Chairman, and it's Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer and the absolute worst case scenario for net neutrality.

Pai is a guy who said after Trump was elected that the neutrality's "days are numbered" and that he would "fire up the weed whacker" to gut protections like the open internet rule."

- Kurt Walters 2017

Interesting read from a Forbes Contributor; Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality?

I feel like I am getting conflicting information this, trying to understand if him as chairman will be a good move (or not) for net neutrality.

Trump has the habit of appointing people who are the opposites, and who have the most conflicting views.

For a man who seems hubristic in many ways, this is one of the most intelligent habits by far.

And I think it is one of the least understood habits of Trump.

For all his boasting and posturing Trump is perfectly aware that he isn't the smartest nor that he has all the answers. That's why he deliberately has people bring different perspectives to the table, and to have them fight it out in front of him.

Appointing total skeptics to run certain agencies isn't necessarily a bad move. It brings a totally different point of view to what is otherwise an echo chamber. The skeptic will also have more credibility with the enemies of these agencies, ensuring greater cooperation.

The responsibility for the selections, however, lie with Donald Trump.

If Trump selected a skeptic or former enemy and used him to head a committee or agency, this will be a success if Trump made a good character judgement - that such a person is open minded and amenable to changing his views after getting new information from the agency officers and committee members.

If Trump made a bad judgement and chose an ideologue, then this person will head the agency with the mentality of a wrecker or saboteur. He will do no good.

I'm pretty sure some of the people Trump appointed will lead their agencies down dark and destructive ways. But I also expect the outcomes to be unpredictable.

Jeff Sessions for instance, is often thought of as a big racist. But one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices in US history, Hugo Black, started out as not just a racist, but a member of the KKK.

So people can be unpredictable. And the Trump administration is probably the least predictable in the history of the United States. They'll either drain the swamp and leave the US as a better place, or... just read any liberal newspaper for predictions on what is likely to happen.

[fohat.digs]

Pai is a guy who said after Trump was elected that the neutrality's "days are numbered"

Interesting read from a Forbes Contributor; Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality?

I feel like I am getting conflicting information this, trying to understand if him as chairman will be a good move (or not) for net neutrality. 

Let me digest this a bit. So far, I haven't figured out how to resolve the conflicting concepts enumerated here.

I was 100% behind the decision to define the internet as a "public utility" and that inevitably involves certain levels of regulation (and hopefully that is to keep the playing field level).

[tp4tissue]

Trump has the habit of appointing people who are the opposites, and who have the most conflicting views.

For a man who seems hubristic in many ways, this is one of the most intelligent habits by far.

And I think it is one of the least understood habits of Trump.

For all his boasting and posturing Trump is perfectly aware that he isn't the smartest nor that he has all the answers. That's why he deliberately has people bring different perspectives to the table, and to have them fight it out in front of him.

Appointing total skeptics to run certain agencies isn't necessarily a bad move. It brings a totally different point of view to what is otherwise an echo chamber. The skeptic will also have more credibility with the enemies of these agencies, ensuring greater cooperation.

The responsibility for the selections, however, lie with Donald Trump.

If Trump selected a skeptic or former enemy and used him to head a committee or agency, this will be a success if Trump made a good character judgement - that such a person is open minded and amenable to changing his views after getting new information from the agency officers and committee members.

If Trump made a bad judgement and chose an ideologue, then this person will head the agency with the mentality of a wrecker or saboteur. He will do no good.

I'm pretty sure some of the people Trump appointed will lead their agencies down dark and destructive ways. But I also expect the outcomes to be unpredictable.

Jeff Sessions for instance, is often thought of as a big racist. But one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices in US history, Hugo Black, started out as not just a racist, but a member of the KKK.

So people can be unpredictable. And the Trump administration is probably the least predictable in the history of the United States. They'll either drain the swamp and leave the US as a better place, or... just read any liberal newspaper for predictions on what is likely to happen.

All you've said is,  --yea,  it might go one way or the other--


No duh...  hahahahahhahaa


It seems like you read but don't think.. haahahahaha

[tp4tissue]

Pai is a guy who said after Trump was elected that the neutrality's "days are numbered"

Interesting read from a Forbes Contributor; Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality?

I feel like I am getting conflicting information this, trying to understand if him as chairman will be a good move (or not) for net neutrality. 

Let me digest this a bit. So far, I haven't figured out how to resolve the conflicting concepts enumerated here.

I was 100% behind the decision to define the internet as a "public utility" and that inevitably involves certain levels of regulation (and hopefully that is to keep the playing field level).

Net neutrality is a certainty..

You can not challenge Google as a politician..  that is political suicide..

[vivalarevolución]

I think that Trump's pro-business pro-labor policies will help the struggling working class some, but automation is a more threatening trend for the American worker.

Any thoughts on how we deal with the vast number of people who will no longer be needed in tomorrow's world?

Universal basic income and more funding for job retraining or re-education is all i can think of.  Unfortunately, individuals that are forced out of a job or industry later in life will have more difficulty with re-positioning themselves in an increasingly automated world.

Fohat—Agreed, over-populaton is a problem but I'm not sure that addresses the problem of surplus labor. If we have 4 billion people instead of 8 billion, it would largely  leave the same percentage of people unnecessary to run a heavily automated society. I'm reminded of the blobs of dystopic humanity in the movie WALL-E.

Granting that we should reduce population, how would we do it? Education? Limiting numbers of children to parents? Stopping humanitarian aid to underdeveloped nations? Extermination of undesirable elements? Euthanization for people at the first sign of geriatric disease? WW3?  This is not not meant as a rhetoric. A less populated Earth makes sense.  I'm just not sure how to do it without a callous disregard for others autonomy or well being.

Ultimately, the questions that must be asked will have to include the value and purpose of the individual.

As always, the people who can least afford to support their children, have the most of such children.

The poorest, most messed up countries are the ones who have the highest birthrates, after which they demand for aid, prey on others' shipping, or simply send out their excess population to others as refugees.

There is no liberal answer to this.

We know the right wing answer to this, and it isn't pretty either.

The topic of reducing fertility rates has been well researched and carried out in many countries.  In fact, fertility rates have been on the declining for many decades and the growth in world population has slowed considerably. Two things that come to mind are improving access to birth control methods (not even talking about abortion here) and empowering women.  Women that see themselves as more than mothers, but actually educated individuals that have a place in the world of work, will be less enthusiastic to be subservient to a man and have a bunch of children.

And you don't have to force any of this on people, just provide them with the opportunity and they will use it if they want it.

If you're that interested in the topic, here is a start from the first page of Google results.  You can Google the issue some more if you that interested.

[atarione]

we may never know if aliens exist... because why anyone smart enough to get here from outer space would want to ... is a mystery to me at least.. unless of course the aliens think we are delicious..

At one point I thought the world would do me a solid and not fall apart before I shuffle off ... now I'm not at all so sure.

Anyone that thinks either the Democrats or Republicans have average people's best interests in mind is delusional...

I may just be grumpy today also.... but my patience for humanity is waning.

[Air tree]

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate


As viva (My bad viva. ) pointed out the population growth is slowing down. Quite a bit since the 60's for example.

[tp4tissue]

The topic of reducing fertility rates has been well researched and carried out in many countries.  In fact, fertility rates have been on the declining for many decades and the growth in world population has slowed considerably. Two things that come to mind are improving access to birth control methods (not even talking about abortion here) and empowering women.  Women that see themselves as more than mothers, but actually educated individuals that have a place in the world of work, will be less enthusiastic to be subservient to a man and have a bunch of children.

And you don't have to force any of this on people, just provide them with the opportunity and they will use it if they want it.

If you're that interested in the topic, here is a start from the first page of Google results.  You can Google the issue some more if you that interested.

If they want it ?

We have  a clear picture.. once you're fed and educated (as far as modern education is concerned)... YOU DON"T want KIDS..


This is bad.. very very bad..

There's hope that we reach a balance point..   but more likely than not..   It'll get to a point where you MUST have one to fill the ranks..

[Elrick]

We have  a clear picture.. once you're fed and educated (as far as modern education is concerned)... YOU DON"T want KIDS..


This is bad.. very very bad..

There's hope that we reach a balance point..   but more likely than not..   It'll get to a point where you MUST have one to fill the ranks..

So it means that every Geekhacker has to start impregnating as many women as possible and you lot need to do it soon.

Do it for your Country because quite soon your own population will be reduced down to oldies and walking frame cretins unable to do anything.  Time to pull out the family jewels and put them to work and I don't mean shooting anymore Pron vids for facebook.

It's your duty to bring in the new generation to clean up our mess we've created for more than 50 plus years.

[tp4tissue]

We have  a clear picture.. once you're fed and educated (as far as modern education is concerned)... YOU DON"T want KIDS..


This is bad.. very very bad..

There's hope that we reach a balance point..   but more likely than not..   It'll get to a point where you MUST have one to fill the ranks..

So it means that every Geekhacker has to start impregnating as many women as possible and you lot need to do it soon.

Do it for your Country because quite soon your own population will be reduced down to oldies and walking frame cretins unable to do anything.  Time to pull out the family jewels and put them to work and I don't mean shooting anymore Pron vids for facebook.

It's your duty to bring in the new generation to clean up our mess we've created for more than 50 plus years.

Well, IDK,  for many of us Geekhackers Personally,   #Ronery4ever isn't a choice,  you kinda just prolly born this way.. hahahahahahahahaha

[MandrewDavis]

/TP4thread

[tp4tissue]

/TP4thread

I think lots ya'll were forgetting that this is one of those..

/had to step in..

to Remind ya'll..  hahahahahahahaha

[iri]

Education? Limiting numbers of children to parents? (...) Extermination of undesirable elements? Euthanization for people at the first sign of geriatric disease? WW3?

What's interesting is that all of that had been tried in various ways and countries.

[Findecanor]

Here in the Western world, it is almost considered a "right" to have a child, no matter what.
Childless couples who want a child or even childless single women in their 40's are given medical treatments to get pregnant and those treatments are often paid for with public funds (in countries that offer their citizens affordable health care)
The first step to limiting population growth would be to change that attitude.

The next step would be to sterilize parents after they have had their second child. Top cope with cases where a child had died in childhood, the sterilization procedures chosen should be of types that could be reversed.

Killing people when they are geriatric or weak... That's stuff from Nazi Germany. Governments should not kill their own people. Murder is murder.

[fohat.digs]

The first step to limiting population growth would be to change that attitude.

The next step would be to sterilize parents after they have had their second child.

Killing people when they are geriatric or weak... That's stuff from Nazi Germany.

There are morally acceptable ways to accomplish some of this.

For example, provide tax breaks and benefits for the first 2 offspring, then tax additional children heavily.

Suicide and euthanasia should be acceptable and non-stigmatized ways for competent adults to end their lives, if they so choose.

[dantan]

Won't work.

Most rational, sensible, reasonable people will go along.

Religious people are not going to accept this.

We'll wind up with a lot of religious people, ranging from Amish to Orthodox Jews to Catholics to Muslims, all really pissed.

The Pope just fired the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta. For offering condoms to poor people as part of his charitable initiatives against VD and unwanted children.

Amish might just peacefully go to jail. But the Orthodox Jews will be suing and suing away. And the Muslims will start blowing things up. There will be no peace until the religious people get to pump out all the kids they want.

I am 100% certain that the world will get more religious. Because the secular progressives will be quickly out reproduced by the religious.

This is the 21st century and you still have lots of people in the USA who refuse to believe in Evolution and who literally think the world is only a few thousand years old.

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

[MandrewDavis]

The first step to limiting population growth would be to change that attitude.

The next step would be to sterilize parents after they have had their second child.

Killing people when they are geriatric or weak... That's stuff from Nazi Germany.

There are morally acceptable ways to accomplish some of this.

For example, provide tax breaks and benefits for the first 2 offspring, then tax additional children heavily.

Suicide and euthanasia should be acceptable and non-stigmatized ways for competent adults to end their lives, if they so choose.

I am not so sure about the suicide portion but I wholly support euthanasia laws like Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. If someone is terminally ill, there is no need to prolong any suffering for fear of "Playing God".

[fohat.digs]

I am 100% certain that the world will get more religious. Because the secular progressives will be quickly out reproduced by the religious.

As horrible and distressing as this is, I have to disagree.

The fact is that while we don't know what really comprises the universe, but it is about as close to a certainty as you can get that the Hebrew God, as imagined in traditional Western religion, is not and was never real, and that the "words" that he supposedly passed down to the human race are surely a human fabrication.

If the creationists and climate deniers killed off all the rational people in the world, does that mean that their beliefs would become "true"?

Not matter what any or all the members of the human race believe (that is: choose to think) it does not alter reality.

[Findecanor]

Won't work.

Most rational, sensible, reasonable people will go along.

Religious people are not going to accept this.

Yeah, but I think most of the religious nutjobs live in places that are going to go to hell anyway within the next five decades.

[dantan]

Won't work.

Most rational, sensible, reasonable people will go along.

Religious people are not going to accept this.

Yeah, but I think most of the religious nutjobs live in places that are going to go to hell anyway within the next five decades.

Nope. When their places go to hell, they'll just migrate to your country. Sweden has an open door policy for migrants, same as many liberal Western countries.

[henz]

Any bets on what kind of funky papers he will sign next?

Its like watching a movie

[ANightOnCloudNine]

im gone for a day and people are talking about assisted suicide wtf

[vivalarevolución]

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

Plato said thousands of years ago that the greatest threat to democracy is the ignorance of the average voter.  I would add apathy to that short list as well.

[tp4tissue]

It's a good thing dantan writes in such a way that no one would read his posts..

Otherwise people might get a wrong idea about cause and effect in politics..


hahahahahaha

[tp4tissue]

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

Plato said thousands of years ago that the greatest threat to democracy is the ignorance of the average voter.  I would add apathy to that short list as well.

plato didn't have internet..

Stop making these leaps guys..  core principles might remain the same, but expression of those principles have drastically been evolved by technology.

[tp4tissue]

The first step to limiting population growth would be to change that attitude.

The next step would be to sterilize parents after they have had their second child.

Killing people when they are geriatric or weak... That's stuff from Nazi Germany.

There are morally acceptable ways to accomplish some of this.

For example, provide tax breaks and benefits for the first 2 offspring, then tax additional children heavily.

Suicide and euthanasia should be acceptable and non-stigmatized ways for competent adults to end their lives, if they so choose.

I am not so sure about the suicide portion but I wholly support euthanasia laws like Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. If someone is terminally ill, there is no need to prolong any suffering for fear of "Playing God".

Why is it that you guys think having LESS kids is the right way to go..

The current economy is completely dependent on humans continuously producing more kids..


If humans don't produce children, then the system continuously prints money that is stagnant..

[tp4tissue]

Here in the Western world, it is almost considered a "right" to have a child, no matter what.
Childless couples who want a child or even childless single women in their 40's are given medical treatments to get pregnant and those treatments are often paid for with public funds (in countries that offer their citizens affordable health care)
The first step to limiting population growth would be to change that attitude.

The next step would be to sterilize parents after they have had their second child. Top cope with cases where a child had died in childhood, the sterilization procedures chosen should be of types that could be reversed.

Killing people when they are geriatric or weak... That's stuff from Nazi Germany. Governments should not kill their own people. Murder is murder.

See people like you are the problem..

Are you going to join the military and get shot

Are you going to go clean vomit from a floor in a school of 1000 kids who vomit alot..

Are you going to go swing a axe in a coal mine..


No.. No one willingly do those things unless they had no better option..


If you started capping off the lower economic class,  now who's left to do all of those things.


This is ridiculous..   The more people the better..   The mental sickness you guys have is generated by having lived too comfortably..


Go to a construction site for a day, and witness REAL god damn work..  for every engineer, there's 1000s of guys breaking their backs swinging a hammer..





Now in your perfect world where only educated rich people procreate..  congratulation, all your money is worth less, because China has all these dudes that'll come into your base and take your ****..   because you didn't produce enough of your own dudes..


Your money is also worthless, because there's no one you can hire to maintain infrastructure..

Because you know, only educated rich people can have kids..



So what's left,  you gotta do your own roads.. ??  too bad, you're 500 men short of building a road..

[vivalarevolución]

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

Plato said thousands of years ago that the greatest threat to democracy is the ignorance of the average voter.  I would add apathy to that short list as well.

plato didn't have internet..

Stop making these leaps guys..  core principles might remain the same, but expression of those principles have drastically been evolved by technology.

Yea, but looking beyond the impact of modern technology, have the essential parts of human nature and behavior changed that much in the last couple thousands years?   There's a reason that we still read the Greek tragedies and Shakespeare's plays, they still are relevant to modern human behavior.

[tp4tissue]

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

Plato said thousands of years ago that the greatest threat to democracy is the ignorance of the average voter.  I would add apathy to that short list as well.

plato didn't have internet..

Stop making these leaps guys..  core principles might remain the same, but expression of those principles have drastically been evolved by technology.

Yea, but looking beyond the impact of modern technology, have the essential parts of human nature and behavior changed that much in the last couple thousands years?   There's a reason that we still read the Greek tragedies and Shakespeare's plays, they still are relevant to modern human behavior.

Well, I would say people still read that old stuff because they need to feel better about their English degrees..  hahahahaha



As for democracy..

I don't think Plato's comprehension of democracy is the same as today..

Democracy without communication is as he said under threat by ignorance..  So that is a huge problem in his day, because information is localized, and some guy has to yell at the top of his lungs on a certain day at a certain time, and you had to be there to hear it.


The threat of ignorance isn't so much a problem today,  rather democracy is under threat because of capitalist mentality ..  To pursue increased personal wealth without a clear purpose in utilizing such wealth..

This is far more dangerous, because the population is then aimless, and easily circularly huddled around hedonism..




This wouldn't have been a problem except now we have Thoroughly conquered the Equation to happiness..  Turns out,  it's Heroin.. 


And we can generate an infinite supply of Heroin..


In conflict,  We now also know..   If you're happy,  you don't go to work, you don't want to work, you don't feel like you need anything.. EXCEPT being m0ar happy..



Modern Pharmacology has redefined what used to be a human endeavor..  Happiness as it turns out is not a right , it's a metered resource..

[fohat.digs]

it's Heroin

Modern Pharmacology has redefined what used to be

No, it's Prozac. Far more profitable and your insurance company pays any asking price for it.

[vivalarevolución]

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

Plato said thousands of years ago that the greatest threat to democracy is the ignorance of the average voter.  I would add apathy to that short list as well.

plato didn't have internet..

Stop making these leaps guys..  core principles might remain the same, but expression of those principles have drastically been evolved by technology.

Yea, but looking beyond the impact of modern technology, have the essential parts of human nature and behavior changed that much in the last couple thousands years?   There's a reason that we still read the Greek tragedies and Shakespeare's plays, they still are relevant to modern human behavior.

Well, I would say people still read that old stuff because they need to feel better about their English degrees..  hahahahaha



As for democracy..

I don't think Plato's comprehension of democracy is the same as today..

Democracy without communication is as he said under threat by ignorance..  So that is a huge problem in his day, because information is localized, and some guy has to yell at the top of his lungs on a certain day at a certain time, and you had to be there to hear it.


The threat of ignorance isn't so much a problem today,  rather democracy is under threat because of capitalist mentality ..  To pursue increased personal wealth without a clear purpose in utilizing such wealth..

This is far more dangerous, because the population is then aimless, and easily circularly huddled around hedonism..




This wouldn't have been a problem except now we have Thoroughly conquered the Equation to happiness..  Turns out,  it's Heroin.. 


And we can generate an infinite supply of Heroin..


In conflict,  We now also know..   If you're happy,  you don't go to work, you don't want to work, you don't feel like you need anything.. EXCEPT being m0ar happy..



Modern Pharmacology has redefined what used to be a human endeavor..  Happiness as it turns out is not a right , it's a metered resource..

I know you like offer a counterpoint for the sake of offering a counterpoint, but...okay I really don't know what to say when tp goes off like this.  Maybe just bow down at his clown genius.

[fanpeople]

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

Plato said thousands of years ago that the greatest threat to democracy is the ignorance of the average voter.  I would add apathy to that short list as well.

plato didn't have internet..

Stop making these leaps guys..  core principles might remain the same, but expression of those principles have drastically been evolved by technology.

Yea, but looking beyond the impact of modern technology, have the essential parts of human nature and behavior changed that much in the last couple thousands years?   There's a reason that we still read the Greek tragedies and Shakespeare's plays, they still are relevant to modern human behavior.

Well, I would say people still read that old stuff because they need to feel better about their English degrees..  hahahahaha



As for democracy..

I don't think Plato's comprehension of democracy is the same as today..

Democracy without communication is as he said under threat by ignorance..  So that is a huge problem in his day, because information is localized, and some guy has to yell at the top of his lungs on a certain day at a certain time, and you had to be there to hear it.


The threat of ignorance isn't so much a problem today,  rather democracy is under threat because of capitalist mentality ..  To pursue increased personal wealth without a clear purpose in utilizing such wealth..

This is far more dangerous, because the population is then aimless, and easily circularly huddled around hedonism..




This wouldn't have been a problem except now we have Thoroughly conquered the Equation to happiness..  Turns out,  it's Heroin.. 


And we can generate an infinite supply of Heroin..


In conflict,  We now also know..   If you're happy,  you don't go to work, you don't want to work, you don't feel like you need anything.. EXCEPT being m0ar happy..



Modern Pharmacology has redefined what used to be a human endeavor..  Happiness as it turns out is not a right , it's a metered resource..

I know you like offer a counterpoint for the sake of offering a counterpoint, but...okay I really don't know what to say when tp goes off like this.  Maybe just bow down at his clown genius.

All tp wants is a belly rub.... go on give him a belly scratch he loves belly scratches.

[tp4tissue]

All tp wants is a belly rub.... go on give him a belly scratch he loves belly scratches.

[noisyturtle]

Trump admin is floating the idea of a 10% tariff on ALL electronics and media not manufactured in America.

That includes but is not limited to all computer components, anything on a disc, phones, your keyboards... pretty much all electronics since America has limited, expensive, and poorly designed manufacturing processes for these items.

Now what do you have to say about a 10% additional tax on everything you care about?

[fohat.digs]

Now what do you have to say about a 10% additional tax on everything you care about?

"Trump just announced his pick for FCC Chairman, and it's Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer and the absolute worst case scenario for net neutrality.

Pai is a guy who said after Trump was elected that the neutrality's "days are numbered" and that he would "fire up the weed whacker" to gut protections like the open internet rule."

- Kurt Walters 2017

[dante]

Trump admin is floating the idea of a 10% tariff on ALL electronics and media not manufactured in America.

That includes but is not limited to all computer components, anything on a disc, phones, your keyboards... pretty much all electronics since America has limited, expensive, and poorly designed manufacturing processes for these items.

Now what do you have to say about a 10% additional tax on everything you care about?

No doubt it will suck for all the Philosophy grads expecting $75k out of College.

For the rest of us in the real world we'll simply curb our spending.  I know that seems like such an alien concept but there was a time when people didn't buy something unless they had the money.  Maybe it will help separate "need" from "want".