Trump

[albrecht]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/19/hillary-trump-mexican-rapist-remarks-can-trigger-shootings-like-charleston/

The state of politics today. Instead of wanting to protect the country from imported rapists and criminals, or from crazy mass shooters, the leading candidate in one party claims simply mentioning the mayhem frequently committed by illegals actually causes the crazy guys to shoot people.

meanwhile for some political revenge on certain States (but increasingly Obama is shipping illegal to states that actually voted for him.)
http://ktar.com/22/1843108/Feds-5K-immigrant-detainees-in-Arizona-have-criminal-records
"Nearly 5,000 Arizona immigrant detainees with criminal records were released from custody, a federal agency has acknowledged.
Of those, 121 later committed fatal crimes."

[DanTSX]

My guess is he was making a joke.

maybe i was too.

[yumyumtree]

Had I said every Republican was like Trump, you might have an argument, though there is at least some evidence that strongly suggests Democratic politicians are far more likely to be mostly factual and to not engage in rhetorical mudslinging to anywhere near the same degree as Republicans.  There are probably 25 Republicans in the House who frequently make asinine hyperpartisan comments, with Louis Gohmert and Steve King being the most visible now that Michelle Bachman has thankfully retired and who are completely useless legislators (which they seem to think is a plus).



On the Democratic side I can only think of DWS and Alan Grayson and while Alan Grayson clearly has a temper and has made some hyper partisan comments, he is also, at least, one of the hardest working, most productive legislators who has on a number of occasions effectively grilled people in oversight hearings.

Anyway, your argument is moot, given that I made no comment here on any Republican Presidential contender other than the Donald himself.  I have on another thread also mentioned Carly Fiorina,  Bobby Jindal , Ben Carson and Chris Christie of also using overheated rhetoric while providing no substance.  But that still leaves at least 12 other declared or prospective Republican Presidential candidates who I don't believe primarily engage in that.

Louis Gohmert has always bothered me too. He sounds ignorant sometimes when I hear him on talk radio.  But he was a judge, which means he very likely got through law school.  Not certainly, but very likely.

[136 or 142]

yes, when i see someone who thinks democrats or republicans are always better or worse in some particular way, i know i'm reading team-think bullshit.  carry on.

When I see someone who says two (or more) things are always inherently equally bad I know I'm reading someone who likely isn't capable of more than lazy thinking.

[136 or 142]

Louis Gohmert has always bothered me too. He sounds ignorant sometimes when I hear him on talk radio.  But he was a judge, which means he very likely got through law school.  Not certainly, but very likely.

He was class president at his law school.  He might just be playing down to his constituents he might not regard as being very intelligent.  If that is the case, so far his constituents have given him no reason to think otherwise.

[albrecht]

He was class president at his law school.  He might just be playing down to his constituents he might not regard as being very intelligent.  If that is the case, so far his constituents have given him no reason to think otherwise.

It could be the case. Who knows, I wish it were the case! He isn't my Rep but so many damn people, and not just illegals but from California and elsewhere, keeping moving here. If Texas is so "bad," "uneducated," etc please, please stop moving here. Traffic is already bad. Sure, I guess, any state wants more businesses to move there, but not me if it means more traffic, weird ideals, more crime, more taxes, worse schools, and higher property tax assessments! Stay home, please. I won't move to your state, pass laws effecting you, pass taxes for you, or demand you adhere to whatever values/ideas/beliefs I have and you don't do the same.

I say devolve more power from the Federal government to individual States, Counties, Cities, and People. Let them control their borders (at least with regard to international borders since the Federal government won't,) and let US citizens move/live in areas where they wish, for political, cultural, business, religious, or whatever reason. I'm also not above allowing areas of certain States to form break-away States, if the people living there vote that way. Especially if some areas have become marginalized or over-ruled by majorities in other parts of the State.

(And for our precious illegals, at least those those that are literate in their own language, which often is not the case: "por favor, no te muevas aquí!")

ps: to keep on thread, bring on Trump. At least debates might be entertaining and maybe the preselected candidates might get a burr under their saddle and we get some good unscripted mistakes. He doesn't have a chance but why not? I wish there were even more crazy people allowed to take the stage- like Vermont or that awesome Idaho debate.

[136 or 142]

It could be the case. Who knows, I wish it were the case! He isn't my Rep but so many damn people, and not just illegals but from California and elsewhere, keeping moving here. If Texas is so "bad," "uneducated," etc please, please stop moving here. Traffic is already bad. Sure, I guess, any state wants more businesses to move there, but not me if it means more traffic, weird ideals, more crime, more taxes, worse schools, and higher property tax assessments! Stay home, please. I won't move to your state, pass laws effecting you, pass taxes for you, or demand you adhere to whatever values/ideas/beliefs I have and you don't do the same.

I say devolve more power from the Federal government to individual States, Counties, Cities, and People. Let them control their borders (at least with regard to international borders since the Federal government won't,) and let US citizens move/live in areas where they wish, for political, cultural, business, religious, or whatever reason. I'm also not above allowing areas of certain States to form break-away States, if the people living there vote that way. Especially if some areas have become marginalized or over-ruled by majorities in other parts of the State.

(And for our precious illegals, at least those those that are literate in their own language, which often is not the case: "por favor, no te muevas aquí!")

ps: to keep on thread, bring on Trump. At least debates might be entertaining and maybe the preselected candidates might get a burr under their saddle and we get some good unscripted mistakes. He doesn't have a chance but why not? I wish there were even more crazy people allowed to take the stage- like Vermont or that awesome Idaho debate.

1.You'll note that while I said that he may think his constituents are stupid, that while I did say they had given him no other reason to think otherwise, I personally don't think his constituents are stupid.  I know there is to some degree a self selection of where people choose to live, but in general, I don't think people in one area are any more or any less stupid than people in any other area.


2.There was a large scale of power devolving to the states if not de Jure then de Facto prior to September 11, 2001 which reinforced federal powers in many areas. Given the distance from that event and the continuing gridlock in Washington which brought it about in the first place, we are already seeing this devolution start up again and baring some new unforseen event it will likely pick up in pace.


I tend to agree it is a good thing for the most part.  When people say "but people in one area get treated differently than people in another area" except where there is a case of a right being abused, I always think "if  people in one area choose to have different laws than people in another area, why is that any concern of yours?"


With the increasing difference between the two major parties on most major issues (some would say everything but the most important issue of corporate control), but there is certainly much more than 'a dime's worth of difference between the two parties' and more importantly, the decline in the difference between the same party in different regions of the country,  we are increasingly seeing the states becoming a laboratory testing the theories of the two major parties.

[albrecht]

1.You'll note that while I said that he may think his constituents are stupid, that while I did say they had given him no other reason to think otherwise, I personally don't think his constituents are stupid.  I know there is to some degree a self selection of where people choose to live, but in general, I don't think people in one area are any more or any less stupid than people in any other area.


2.There was a large scale of power devolving to the states if not de Jure then de Facto prior to September 11, 2001 which reinforced federal powers in many areas. Given the distance from that event and the continuing gridlock in Washington which brought it about in the first place, we are already seeing this devolution start up again and baring some new unforseen event it will likely pick up in pace.


I tend to agree it is a good thing for the most part.  When people say "but people in one area get treated differently than people in another area" except where there is a case of a right being abused, I always think "if  people in one area choose to have different laws than people in another area, why is that any concern of yours?"


With the increasing difference between the two major parties on most major issues (some would say everything but the most important issue of corporate control), but there is certainly much more than 'a dime's worth of difference between the two parties' and more importantly, the decline in the difference between the same party in different regions of the country,  we are increasingly seeing the states becoming a laboratory testing the theories of the two major parties.

To your points:
1) Yeah. Though the more cynical part of me thinks that people are stupid in many regions, though they vary in the cause or version. And politics, or entertainment, seeks to find the LCD not elevate things. Some studies say that the Presidential Speech, for example, of Bush/Obama is something on a 9th Grade level of complexity, allusion, grammar, etc. And this is a 9th Grade that is already, likely, less knowledgeable, at least in subjects like rhetoric etc than a 9th Grade of decades past.

2) 9/11. I'll say it even if others won't. There is always, in any venture or in life, a measure of risk. And every person, country, family, business, etc acts based on their own risk tolerance. Personally, especially in light of all the hacking, the former Soviet (and other) spy leaks, and increasing aggrandizement of the Executive Branch (and the Federal Government also) that the consolidation of departments, more "sharing" of information, databases, and the like and overall reaction to 9/11 was ill advised**. I said that then and will still say it. In a free society crap, and very bad crap, will happen- especially one that will take any dregs of the world, into it without question, and diversity is not strength. Nor is foreign meddling. So we should pay attention sure to the actual enemies- not be politically correct. And try not to create new ones. But also one big event shouldn't make law or policy without actual, careful consideration and debate. Real, or potentially really big, enemies (foreign countries) have an easier access to information (as proven) and "whistle-blowers," or traitors, can get away with more information (as proven.) Not to mention civil right issues, the costs, the corruption, sweet-heart deals, etc. (I'll ignore the post 9/11 war(s) issues as those was unadvised, especially as handled and directed.) I don't want conflict with China, Russia, (or whomever) but, at least potentially, there is more of a real threat from them, if it came to it, than the Muslims. Change the whole system of law and goverance due to some backward guys hiding in caves? Dumb move.

**If our government, or the people, were concerned about our security it would not be handling it the way they are but by securing the border, 'profiling' at travel checkpoints- especially for international ports and airports- but also in general, actually investigating (or suspending) various VISAs and especially those who over-stay, seizing assets and ACTUALLY penalizing criminally people at banks, companies, and people who hire, or launder money for, terrorists, illegals, Cartels, etc, and certainly not have a policy of releasing illegals, the few they manage to catch, who ALREADY have a criminal history of things like rape; even murder.

[Zoo]

May God help us all!!1

[coaster]

Trump tweeted "I love the Mexican people, but Mexico is not our friend. They're killing us at the border and they're killing us on jobs and trade. FIGHT!" this was recently posted on reddit. One of Trump's suits, made in Mexico. Fuck this guy is a clown.

[21st Century Man]

May God help us all!!1

You said in another thread that God was dead.  Which is it?

[21st Century Man]

When I see someone who says two (or more) things are always inherently equally bad I know I'm reading someone who likely isn't capable of more than lazy thinking.

Man, you sure have bought into the groupthink that characterizes the Democrat Party.  Sheesh!  Republicans are not much better and they need to become a true opposition party.  It will be a lot better when the old RINO's retire.

[136 or 142]

Man, you sure have bought into the groupthink that characterizes the Democrat Party.  Sheesh!  Republicans are not much better and they need to become a true opposition party.  It will be a lot better when the old RINO's retire.

1.It's Democratic Party, not Democrat Party


2.People who say two things are always equally inherently bad are far more into modern day lazy, cynical groupthink than anything I post. 


3.The modern day Republican party is a joke and despite winning the recent midterms both for Congress and at the state level, their handful of bright lights know that they are on a longterm decline due to changing demographics and the views of the clear majority of young people being totally inconsistent with the views of the current Republican Party and that the teabaggers are only going to make things worse.

[21st Century Man]

1.It's Democratic Party, not Democrat Party


2.People who say two things are always equally inherently bad are far more into modern day lazy, cynical groupthink than anything I post. 


3.The modern day Republican party is a joke and despite winning the recent midterms both for Congress and at the state level, their handful of bright lights know that they are on a longterm decline due to changing demographics and the views of the clear majority of young people being totally inconsistent with the views of the current Republican Party and that the teabaggers are only going to make things worse.

Geez, now you are getting technical. I was testing you to see if you were anal-retentive. You appear to be but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You really don't want to know what I call the Democratic Party privately.  I hate to break it to you but your changing demographics are wishful thinking.  These last 2 weeks have awakened a Sleeping Giant.  The silent majority so to speak.  I don't know where it is going.  If the Republicans proceed with RINO candidates and policies, a true opposition party will form.  Quickly too.  The Republicans will go the way of the Whigs.  I don't get why you are so concerned with the politics of the USA when you are a Canadian.  Fix your own government that you seem to detest so much.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM5_T0eNPrQ

[136 or 142]

I hate to break it to you but your changing demographics are wishful thinking.  These last 2 weeks have awakened a Sleeping Giant.  The silent majority so to speak.  I don't know where it is going.  If the Republicans proceed with RINO candidates and policies, a true opposition party will form.  Quickly too.  The Republicans will go the way of the Whigs.  I don't get why you are so concerned with the politics of the USA when you are a Canadian.  Fix your own government that you seem to detest so much.

Sometimes I wish that I could stop you from talking when I hear the silly things you say.

[SciFiAuthor]

When I see someone who says two (or more) things are always inherently equally bad I know I'm reading someone who likely isn't capable of more than lazy thinking.

You're just not old and jaded enough yet (or just a lazy thinker) and still living under the illusion that politicians are what they present themselves to be and not people out to make fame and fortune by playing the system. Underneath the R or the D is exactly the same kind of person, and as far as ideology goes, there isn't any; there is only money. It goes no further than that, money, money, money. There is no such thing as a legitimate social cause or anything of the sort within politics, those are things to be used as tools, wedge issues used to get elected. The bottom line is just money.

What MV means by groupthink or team-think are the social memes that become ideological "standards" on the left or right and thusly become "standards" of each party. Let's look at how those come into being. They typically start as scare pieces. It's an age old business model for less-than-ethical writers to write a scare piece to pull in a bunch of cash. We've seen it before with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" where a sufficiently scary book becomes a best seller and the targeted readership falls for it and the author makes a ton of cash and then the movement created by the book goes on to affect social change like a bull in a china shop, i.e. the banning of DDT (which set anti-Malaria initiatives in Africa back a century) which is now, 40 years later, questioned.

Another example was "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich, the book that put overpopulation on the map as a problem within leftwing thinking. This book made Ehrlich tons of cash, but also resulted in the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of people in the third world. 40 years later, we know that most of Ehrlich's conclusions were gross errors, for example we did not run out of aluminum in 1990. But the social causes created by that book still exist and/or benefit from the erroneous ideas it presented. One such organization is planned parenthood.

A third example is climate change. Al Gore understood that writing a scare movie works the same way as a book and released "An Inconvenient Truth" which we now know is littered with grossly overblown scenarios that, now, when some of that stuff is supposed to have happened, hasn't. There's a reason for that; he used the very worst predictions he could find to make the movie as scary as he possibly could so that PEOPLE WOULD PAY TO SEE IT. But things haven't exactly panned out the way he said they would. Yet the effects of this movie still reverberate among the left.

The right does this too. Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan have made fortunes using the scare book technique to play on the whims of Christians and the right. The bottom line is that if you write something scary, you can sell a ton of copy. It does not matter if your assertions are valid or not, they just have to be scary to sell. What happens from there, whether society suffers or advances as a result of what you wrote doesn't matter. All that matters is the check from the publisher.

All of politics is an illusion, a group of careers for people that know how to play people. Understand that whenever you pick a "side", you're being had. Whenever you go for a "cause", you're being had. Whenever you engage in openly divisive posting because you think you're right, you're being had. Groupthink is the devil.

[chefist]

teabaggers are only going to make things worse.

I'm a Libertarian for many reasons. One is the pure hatred I see in both the Democratic and Republican parties...both market vilification of the other party to win elections...I can't accept any political party that turns me against my neighbor simply because we many not have the same view on every policy...

[SciFiAuthor]

I'm a Libertarian for many reasons. One is the pure hatred I see in both the Democratic and Republican parties...both market vilification of the other party to win elections...I can't accept any political party turn me against my neighbor simply because we many not have the same view on every policy...

Division = cash.

BTW, nice job hosting on the Gab cast. It was entertaining as usual.

[Quick Karl]

You're just not old and jaded enough yet (or just a lazy thinker) and still living under the illusion that politicians are what they present themselves to be and not people out to make fame and fortune by playing the system. Underneath the R or the D is exactly the same kind of person, and as far as ideology goes, there isn't any; there is only money. It goes no further than that, money, money, money. There is no such thing as a legitimate social cause or anything of the sort within politics, those are things to be used as tools, wedge issues used to get elected. The bottom line is just money.

Absofuckinglutely, posifuckingtively, the truth.

[chefist]

Division = cash.

BTW, nice job hosting on the Gab cast. It was entertaining as usual.

LOL...thanks, brother! It was fun! I was told I should have talked more, but that is an unnatural thing for me...not used to talking over people...

[136 or 142]

You're just not old and jaded enough yet (or just a lazy thinker) and still living under the illusion that politicians are what they present themselves to be and not people out to make fame and fortune by playing the system. Underneath the R or the D is exactly the same kind of person, and as far as ideology goes, there isn't any; there is only money. It goes no further than that, money, money, money. There is no such thing as a legitimate social cause or anything of the sort within politics, those are things to be used as tools, wedge issues used to get elected. The bottom line is just money.

What MV means by groupthink or team-think are the social memes that become ideological "standards" on the left or right and thusly become "standards" of each party. Let's look at how those come into being. They typically start as scare pieces. It's an age old business model for less-than-ethical writers to write a scare piece to pull in a bunch of cash. We've seen it before with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" where a sufficiently scary book becomes a best seller and the targeted readership falls for it and the author makes a ton of cash and then the movement created by the book goes on to affect social change like a bull in a china shop, i.e. the banning of DDT (which set anti-Malaria initiatives in Africa back a century) which is now, 40 years later, questioned.

Another example was "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich, the book that put overpopulation on the map as a problem within leftwing thinking. This book made Ehrlich tons of cash, but also resulted in the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of people in the third world. 40 years later, we know that most of Ehrlich's conclusions were gross errors, for example we did not run out of aluminum in 1990. But the social causes created by that book still exist and/or benefit from the erroneous ideas it presented. One such organization is planned parenthood.

A third example is climate change. Al Gore understood that writing a scare movie works the same way as a book and released "An Inconvenient Truth" which we now know is littered with grossly overblown scenarios that, now, when some of that stuff is supposed to have happened, hasn't. There's a reason for that; he used the very worst predictions he could find to make the movie as scary as he possibly could so that PEOPLE WOULD PAY TO SEE IT. But things haven't exactly panned out the way he said they would. Yet the effects of this movie still reverberate among the left.

The right does this too. Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan have made fortunes using the scare book technique to play on the whims of Christians and the right. The bottom line is that if you write something scary, you can sell a ton of copy. It does not matter if your assertions are valid or not, they just have to be scary to sell. What happens from there, whether society suffers or advances as a result of what you wrote doesn't matter. All that matters is the check from the publisher.

All of politics is an illusion, a group of careers for people that know how to play people. Understand that whenever you pick a "side", you're being had. Whenever you go for a "cause", you're being had. Whenever you engage in openly divisive posting because you think you're right, you're being had. Groupthink is the devil.

You're picking a side too: the cynical side.  I don't by it one bit.  There are many decent people who go into politics because they are either idealists or because they are pragmatists.  If anybody is being 'had', it's clearly you for believing that the nearly uniformly negative stories of some politicians in the media represents all the politicians.  For a person who puts most of the word 'science' in his nickname, I would expect a better understanding of mathematics and statistics than to fall for blanket stereotypes.


The decent idealist on the left, some members of left leaning religious organizations are mostly on the side of angels, even if I find their idealism and absolutism frequently stupid and annoying and most are genuinely nice people.


The decent idealists on the right, mostly religious conservatives have a leadership that is among the most cynical 'win at all costs' disgusting people that I've ever seen among anybody in politics (for instance, Ralph Reed although he is pretty much now out of politics), but most of their supporters are generally nice, decent people (for instance 21st Century Man).

The more pragmatic people, frequently business owners or executives, economists and professionals, tend to be practical people that just want to solve problems they see in society.


I don't doubt that a fair number of these people who start out as as either idealists or pragmatists end up as cynical and/or corrupt.  For instance, I would say that Charles Rangel likely started his career as a civil rights idealist, but ended as a guy who should probably be facing criminal charges, or the same thing with Dennis Hastert who I would describe as originally a mix of pragmatist and idealist looks like he's going to end up going to jail.


Then there are the people like Tom DeLay who it seems went it to politics just to have an easier way of making a living than as a pest control company owner and ended up as one of the most cynical and corrupt politicians in modern history, even if his criminal convictions were overturned.


To "The Population Bomb"  Ehrlich did not foresee the improvements in technology and techniques that led to the 'agricultural revolution' among other things, but as that guest on Coast to Coast who was dumped after one hour said, not only have there been no new breakthroughs in using most resources more efficiently, we are now bumping up against some of the drawbacks that initially enabled those revolutions and there is practically no expert on the subject who believes that the world has the carrying capacity for a population of around 10 to 12 billion.


Planned Parenthood and likely that thing you mentioned in Africa were more a result of eugenics theory which preceded Ehrlich by 50 years or so.  Of course, to say that the people involved in Planned Parenthood now are inherently evil because part of the reason for the establishment of their organization was rooted in evil ideas is a logical fallacy.


While one year's weather (or even a few years) should not necessarily be seen as a trend, with the increase in extreme weather events, including a record number of highs and lows in temperature and the increase around much of the world in droughts as well as desertification, decline in sea ice... anybody who does not believe in agw now is clearly a blithering idiot.

[SciFiAuthor]

You're picking a side too: the cynical side.  I don't by it one bit.  There are many decent people who go into politics because they are either idealists or because they are pragmatists.  If anybody is being 'had', it's clearly you for believing that the nearly uniformly negative stories of some politicians in the media represents all the politicians.  For a person who puts most of the word 'science' in his nickname, I would expect a better understanding of mathematics and statistics than to fall for blanket stereotypes.

No, just realistic. I've known and had to deal with some of these people and have been active in local politics for decades. I've known Claire McCaskill since she was the state auditor for Missouri when I worked with her to audit the corrupt-ass city I was living in at the time. I know precisely what she is, I watched her career unfold. You might get a decent politician at the low end, on a city or county council or something, but for anything above that the sad truth is that sleaze is a job requirement.

The decent idealist on the left, some members of left leaning religious organizations are mostly on the side of angels, even if I find their idealism and absolutism frequently stupid and annoying and most are genuinely nice people.

The decent idealist on the left that votes democrat missed the point. They have mostly been bought by the tech corporations. Obama certainly has been, Mark Zuckerberg appears to completely own that dude. All members of all organized religions are liars, either to themselves or someone else.

The decent idealists on the right, mostly religious conservatives have a leadership that is among the most cynical 'win at all costs' disgusting people that I've ever seen among anybody in politics (for instance, Ralph Reed although he is pretty much now out of politics), but most of their supporters are generally nice, decent people (for instance 21st Century Man).

I see no real difference between the political tactics of the Republican or Democratic parties. They are identical parties using the same group of professional tacticians in order to push whatever lobby they represent and will say or do anything to get elected.

The more pragmatic people, frequently business owners or executives, economists and professionals, tend to be practical people that just want to solve problems they see in society.

They generally don't enter politics. It's mostly lawyers.

I don't doubt that a fair number of these people who start out as as either idealists or pragmatists end up as cynical and/or corrupt.  For instance, I would say that Charles Rangel likely started his career as a civil rights idealist, but ended as a guy who should probably be facing criminal charges, or the same thing with Dennis Hastert who I would describe as originally a mix of pragmatist and idealist looks like he's going to end up going to jail.

Rangel's just a typical politician, he saw opportunities and took them and rode the wave as far as he could. Hastert's worse, a homosexual pederast that became a teacher/coach/boyscout leader (wonder why he did that?) and when he couldn't do that anymore went into politics.

Then there are the people like Tom DeLay who it seems went it to politics just to have an easier way of making a living than as a pest control company owner and ended up as one of the most cynical and corrupt politicians in modern history, even if his criminal convictions were overturned.

He just got caught.

To "The Population Bomb"  Ehrlich did not foresee the improvements in technology and techniques that led to the 'agricultural revolution' among other things, but as that guest on Coast to Coast who was dumped after one hour said, not only have there been no new breakthroughs in using most resources more efficiently, we are now bumping up against some of the drawbacks that initially enabled those revolutions and there is practically no expert on the subject who believes that the world has the carrying capacity for a population of around 10 to 12 billion.

It's a scare book. Ehrlich's a smart man, he knew that the Earth's crust is made up of 8% aluminum and every atom of it we've ever mined is still here. The human race will not reach 10-12 billion nor is the carrying capacity that low, the data strongly suggests that human societies that grow in affluence drop dramatically in birth rates on their own and ultimately face a population crisis where shrinking is the problem, not growing. There's no need to go around tricking women in India to get intubated, they're getting rich, they'll slow down on the breeding soon enough.

Planned Parenthood and likely that thing you mentioned in Africa were more a result of eugenics theory which preceded Ehrlich by 50 years or so.  Of course, to say that the people involved in Planned Parenthood now are inherently evil because part of the reason for the establishment of their organization was rooted in evil ideas is a logical fallacy.

PP ditched Sanger's racist eugenics for Ehrlich's population theories after the book. They sort of had to from a PR point of view. Sanger wanted to make sure the halfwits and minorities didn't breed so much and that didn't fly well after the 60's though such a thing still appears to be the main function of PP in action. Sad to say it, but that's what it boils down to if you look at their numbers and demographics.

While one year's weather (or even a few years) should not necessarily be seen as a trend, with the increase in extreme weather events, including a record number of highs and lows in temperature and the increase around much of the world in droughts as well as desertification, decline in sea ice... anybody who does not believe in agw now is clearly a blithering idiot.

It won't get that far regardless of anyone's standing on the matter. The world forgot that engineers exist and that climate change is a technologically solvable problem. It will not be a concern in 40 years, even though it's currently big business. The politicians know this, that's why all legislation written worldwide to combat climate amounts to only a very small token reduction in global emissions over the course of the next century. It's just something they do so the Starbuck's laptopper activists have something to pat themselves on the back over, the sillies. Hell of a way to get votes though, it's almost a religion in its own right these days.

[Quick Karl]

I don't by it one bit.  There are many decent people who go into politics because they are either idealists or because they are pragmatists.  If anybody is being 'had', it's clearly you for believing that the nearly uniformly negative stories of some politicians in the media represents all the politicians.

With all due respect - what the fuck are you smoking?

[136 or 142]

It won't get that far regardless of anyone's standing on the matter. The world forgot that engineers exist and that climate change is a technologically solvable problem. It will not be a concern in 40 years, even though it's currently big business. The politicians know this, that's why all legislation written worldwide to combat climate amounts to only a very small token reduction in global emissions over the course of the next century. It's just something they do so the Starbuck's laptopper activists have something to pat themselves on the back over, the sillies. Hell of a way to get votes though, it's almost a religion in its own right these days.

AGW is already a problem now and will only get worse.  For a person who likes to portray himself as too cynical to fall for the bullshit, regurgitating brain dead talking points like 'AGW is a religion to its believers' doesn't help your cause.

[SciFiAuthor]

AGW is already a problem now and will only get worse.  For a person who likes to portray himself as too cynical to fall for the bullshit, regurgitating brain dead talking points like 'AGW is a religion to its believers' doesn't help your cause.

I'm convinced that it's occurring, I'm just not convinced by the mass hysteria that was fomented around it into believing that the end is nigh or even a blip in the long-term. It should have remained within the realm of science and not politicized as it was, as such it simply descended into a political dog and pony show that's made literally billions for the cottage industry and lobby that's developed around combatting climate change.

And yes, it's replaced religion in some people. I watched Bjorn Lomborg get crucified for simply having a variant opinion on the matter. Not a denial, but a very sensible variant opinion. He wasn't crucified on the basis of his work, but rather his refusal to tow the dogmatic line. That dogmatic line originates within and is promoted by academia through the media because the general sense is that if you don't scare the shit out of people you'll never meaningfully combat climate change. It's basically a play on the old Roman Catholic hell and guilt stuff to create conformity. Another victim was Freeman Dyson for being the slightest bit critical of the methodology of the whole thing, so if you claim to be for science, understand that one of the most preeminent living physicists is currently under attack for simply asking questions. Questions are bad, so says the inquisition.

And it's all remarkably stupid. The human race will be a zero emission society within 30 years due to fusion energy technology and cooling the planet is pretty easy to do. Mt. Pinatubo did it in a long weekend. This focus on being green and carbon credits and the other abominations have no future because cutting emissions isn't a viable solution. You'd have to convince China and India to give up growth, and they would rather destroy the earth than do that.

[SciFiAuthor]

With all due respect - what the fuck are you smoking?

I want some, whatever the hell it is.

[21st Century Man]

The decent idealists on the right, mostly religious conservatives have a leadership that is among the most cynical 'win at all costs' disgusting people that I've ever seen among anybody in politics (for instance, Ralph Reed although he is pretty much now out of politics), but most of their supporters are generally nice, decent people (for instance 21st Century Man).

I wouldn't say that I belong to the social conservative side of the Republican Party.  I'm moderate to liberal on social issues.  Libertarian would better describe me.  As long as one isn't hurting someone else, what they do in their own lives is none of my business.  There is a caveat though.  I'm a Christian though not really a fundamentalist but I ally myself to that side because I see Christianity being demonized in this country and it is not right.  My wife is a fundamentalist but no zealot.

What I do believe in is a strict constructionist view of the Constitutition along the lines of Robert Bork who would have been the greatest Justice of the late 20th and Early 21st Century.  Instead we are saddled with self-important activist mediocrities like Anthony Kennedy and the 4 justices on the left who currently reside on the Court. I use the word left with hesitation because as SciFiAuthor points out those terms are divisive. However, I'll stick to that term for the time being until some word that is a better descriptive comes along.

As far as the two parties go, I have almost completely lost faith with them.  I lost faith in the Democratic Part when I was 12 years old and even before then I begged my parents to vote for Nixon in 1972 when I was 6.  I don't regret that either. Almost all politicians are subservients of the corporations and the only thing they desire is money lining their own pockets. There are a few good ones left but they are in a very small minority. 

In my own way, I'm an idealist who is consistently disappointed and troubled about the direction of the country.  I think there was a poll recently where 85% of Americans are disturbed about the direction the country is going in. I can look it up if you want me to.  How's that for changing demographics, 136?

   I like you, 136, and I think you are a good person but you really need to question the material that you read and find out what agendas are in place.  Seek unbiased facts and steer clear of radical organizations.

[FightTheFuture]

Trump's common sense message is resonating with frustrated Republican voters.  However,it's merely a matter of time unti the media uncovers something particularly distasteful from the man's past, or he uncorks a real whopper which makes everyone a little too uncomfortable.

[21st Century Man]

1 Corinthians 15:52  King James Version (KJV)

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.


Its over folks.  New world rising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSoL8WdgI_Y

[Yorkshire pud]

Trump sparks anger with McCain war record comments - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33583898


Ooops.