All The Things You Aren't Supposed to Talk About : Politics, Religion, & Money! && Grammar!!

Discussion in 'Community Hang-Out' started by simplyTravis, Mar 5, 2016.

  1. simplyTravis

    simplyTravis "A nice guy, but looks like a f'n Jedi!"

    So, I'm curious. Why bring up flat-Earth theory when it is completely obvious that the Earth is not flat? We can observe that it is round easily. Your retort seems to come with a lot of prejudice built into it based on how you are wording things.

    But if I wanted to be facetious I could say that we are all on a flat plane according to the evidence behind the holographic univers theory so...the Earth really is flat according to science!

    Also, I did talk about the philosophy (or you can call it a theory if you want) behind my thought process on Creationism instead of telling you a fact. Sometimes there is more truth behind philosophy than can be measured. Similar to how it's impossible to give the Mona Lisa a measurable grade next to Van Gogh's Starry Night in any sort of objective fashion. We just don't live completely in absolutes. That is another reason why I cited how little we comprehend. Keep in mind, a scientist is still merely a fallible person and not this sort of new age Christ-like figure that progressive ideology tends to allude to. I know scientists still in their fields but I also know a few that left because of how cold that world can be. (Pithing mice for instance when they finish an experiment would take the heart out of most.)

    I also have a hard time forcing everything under the "inscrutable" eye of science because, as you said, there is a lot of incentive to put forth a certain view usually in the form of government and investor grants.

    So, we are a bit at an impasse here. I'm not going to necessarily change my view because I can't prove God exists by going out and taking a picture of Him or weighing Him. You still aren't going to convince me that He doesn't exist because you allude to God in the most ridiculous verbiage possible. I don't find this theory silly because scientists still can't prove how or why got here.

    And finally, you state that scientists should be our main guiding light for getting our money worth out of public education. That isn't always the case. There are times where scientists leave out common sense and human nature because they remove the human element from experiments. I remember quite a few professors that would cite scientific evidence for various methods of classroom management that simply were not feasible in the real world. They could cite various studies but quite a few never actually walked into a classroom. Many of the scientific studies in the past have been very harmful to kids. Just take a gander into how schools were run in the 1800's and 1900's. It can be horrifying.

    So, what I'm trying to get at is that I'm not going to throw all of my faith into the scientific community just because they have a process. I will, however, take into consideration what they say. If they can prove something, that is fine. However, I don't look to them for everything. Especially not when it comes to raising children because progress in science is often more important than anything else. One of my favorite examples of this is Robert Boyle's painting "An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump" It shows a sort of proto-scientist (natural philosopher) that is recreating an experiment where a bird is deprived of air. There are various reactions in the image and the scientist looks towards the viewer to bring you into the scene and decide who is right. The answer is tough and not necessarily objective just like this topic we have brought up.

    • Like Like x 3
  2. Juegos

    Juegos All mods go to heaven. Staff Member Moderator

    I'm not trying to argue whether God exists or not. I have my own views on that*, and no, it's not that there is a God-Octopus, that was just an example of a belief that is not scientific even if it cannot be scientifically disproven.

    Once again, whether somebody thinks something makes sense or doesn't, or whether they think it's helpful or practical or not, has no bearing on it being scientific. Creationism cannot be scientific until people come up with independently reproducible experiments whose consistent results logically prove a hypothesis. Creationism won't be scientific until many independent creationists can truthfully say, "we observed such and such as they underwent an experimental process of so and so, and found that because A and B, therefore C, such that God has indeed created the Earth X number of years ago; we were able to reproduce these results over and over, just like our peers in these other parts of the world, with no significant or inexplicable variation." Whether somebody thinks this is good or bad is up to that person, but what isn't up to that person is whether something is scientific or not.

    When people talk about the Theory of Evolution, there are hundreds of thousands of cycles of the scientific method behind it, which is what makes it scientific. Not so with creationism in Abrahamic religions, let alone in non-Abrahamic or polytheistic religions (and we're not about to teach all those in an American school just because there are people of those religions that believe in them). Just don't call creationism "scientific". It's like calling cars ground-planes. If it's not planing across the sky, it's not a plane. If it doesn't follow the scientific method, it's not scientific.

    My current view on God is that I don't need to bother myself with the question of whether God exists, and what kind of God that would be (monotheistic, pantheistic, etc). Regardless of whether I believe God is an omniscient, omnipotent bearded man in the sky, or whether God is in every living thing, or whether God is the force that holds all subatomic particles together, there should be no difference in how I live my life. If I want to live a good life, I should be able to do so whether I believe God exists, or doesn't exist, or I can't possibly know at all.

    Edit: Just for clarity, I'm not responding specifically to Travis. I'm responding to the last few pages where there have been several attempts at calling Creationism a scientific theory on the same footing as Evolution.
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
  3. DarkDepths

    DarkDepths Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord


    I don't think that ('that' being the contents of either of your previous 2 posts) is all that unreasonable.

    First, I agree that scientists are "just human too." They make mistakes, they have prejudices, and so on. However, that's what the process aims to diminish. Science is built on repeatable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed experimentation. For results to be "valid" they must be repeatable by other scientists, it must be theoretically possible to demonstrate them to be incorrect, and they have to be reviewed by other scientists typically in a double-blind review wherein the reviewers don't know who the author is, and the author doesn't know who the reviewer is.

    Further, I don't think anyone should have faith in science. Whether or not you "believe" that friction exists, for example, doesn't matter. You can set up an experiment and prove it to yourself. Of course, as things get more complicated, that becomes less and less feasible. But all scientific results are built upon layers of increasingly complex concepts. We can independently review the literature, make ourselves expert, and verify for ourselves. You can't do that for everything, of course, so I admit that you do have to have some trust that the entire system isn't colluding to deceive you. But if you combine a strong personal foundation in the sciences based on self-verified experimentation, with continued willingness to read and study scientific literature, I don't think it's too hard to diminish the requirement on trust.

    Second, I don't think your approach to the sort-of larger philosophical question is too unreasonable. I'm also not really willing to go 'all-in' on the whole 'no-God' thing. I don't call myself an agnostic, because it's taken on a meaning of being a 'fence-sitter.' I'm not a fence-sitter, I definitely lean towards 'no-God' but I'm probably around like, 85% or something. There are a number of things I struggle with, with your idea:
    • I can't find any good reason to believe the Christian genesis story over others
    • the scientific method is useful and is the only reason we have advanced technologically
    • the lack of answers inherent in it
      • Whether God did it or not, that's still not an answer. Since the universe exists, there must be a process by which universes can come into existence. If God didn't do it, how did it happen? If God did do it, how did he do it?

    Ultimately, there either is a God or there is not. Like I said to Odo before, we have different ways of making sense of the world around us. I think science is the best tool for discovering the truth. I assume you think faith in Christ is the way to go. This seems to be the fundamental point of disagreement, in all of these such discussions. I cannot understand how you can disregard science, and I guess you can't understand how I can disregard personal religious experience.
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 1
  4. simplyTravis

    simplyTravis "A nice guy, but looks like a f'n Jedi!"

    I don't see it as dogmatically as that or that Christianity and science are necessarily mutually exclusive. And I can understand how some disregard personal religious experience. I've had that myself, but I didn't feel bringing those experiences made sense in the scope of our discussions because they would be shot down immediately.

    Christian Genesis is a tough pill to swallow, I'll admit. I think there is a bit of writing in the Bible that references various cultural understandings of the times where the scope of billions/trillions of years may not have been comprehended within their scope of understanding. But, I think that is a topic for another day and one I don't have enough knowledge to get into.
  5. DarkDepths

    DarkDepths Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord

    Well... it depends on what you mean by "abiogenesis can't be proved." If you mean, we can't prove the current life is definitely the product of abiogenesis, then I agree. But, what if we can model what we think the early universe must have looked like, recreate those conditions on a small scale, and demonstrate that abiogensis can occur within them?

    I mean, this is the core of the issue. There is nothing we can do to demonstrate the existence of a God. You can feel it in your bones, but you can't demonstrate to another person that God exists. On the other hand, I can do some calculations, shoot a pool ball, and demonstrate to you that our understanding of momentum is pretty darn good. Similarly, I could theoretically demonstrate to you that abiogensis is possible.

    Science requires falsifiability. In order for something to be a theory, it must be theoretically possible to demonstrate that it is incorrect. We can do this with momentum, for example. Theoretically, you could shoot a fair pool ball and it could simply not move at all. And you would go "wtf... something weird just happened." You'd do it again, and other people would try it and replicate it and the world would collectively say "wtf... what happened to momentum?" Of course, that hasn't happened [yet] and we therefore continue to think that our understand of momentum is a pretty good one.

    You could also theoretically falsify evolution. Evolution expects life to change over generations. If you were to study several generations and not observe adaptations, then you would be on your way to doing so.

    Some people say, well, you can't falsify something that supposedly happened a gagillion years in the past. And that's true to an extent. Imagine a simple experiment: I inspect Mr. Christies kitchen and find half a cookie on the counter. For the next 6 years, I watch his kitchen every morning and, every morning, Mr Christie grabs a cookie, eats half of it, and leaves the remaining half on the counter. I can then be pretty confident about how the first half-cookie I saw got to be that way. I can't be absolutely certain, but what is the probability that out of the ~2000 instances, the only one that was caused by something different was the only one that I didn't directly witness. It is a logical inference.

    Similarly, if we can demonstrate that evolution occurs. If we can demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible in 'early-universe' conditions. If we can demonstrate that planets can form and so on and so forth. If we can demonstrate a natural possibility for how we got to where we are, and it is consistent with all that we know about the universe. Then it is not unreasonable to say "this is our best explanation." And, as science tends to do, when flaws are inevitably found, it will change and the explanation will get better.

    Contrast this with the "Creationist" explanation. It starts with "God is real," and "the bible is literally true." We can't falsify "God is real" because "God is real" isn't testable, because God is a variable that if it exists cannot be controlled. If we attempt to prove the usefulness of prayer, for example, and find that it does not better than random chance, what is the conclusion? It's not that prayer doesn't work - it can't be, because we can't control the conditions under which prayers are answered. Maybe God has off-days and doesn't feel like answering prayers, or more likely the claim, what if the products of Gods work is not obvious? It's the classic story, right? "If you pray for bravery, God won't make you brave, he'll give you an opportunity in which to be brave." Well, how do you measure that? If I get 1000 people together to pray for $14.36 cents each to be delivered to them in a brown envelope in precisely 16 minutes, I can measure the results, but certainly no believers would take the results seriously.

    My running through the various flaws in Creationist arguments earlier may have thrown you off my intention. My point there was to show that the arguments typically used are not scientific in nature. But that's not always necessarily true. The bigger point is that you cannot falsify "creation" to the satisfaction of a believer - it's impossible. Conversely, you can definitely falsify any scientific principle/theory to any reasonable scientist - they might not like it and they may take a long time to accept it, but it acceptance doesn't really matter - logic speaks for itself. But logic is how we describe our universe, and God supposedly exists outside of it, so apparently logic can no longer be trusted.

    Chefs occasionally discuss cars, that doesn't mean a Model T is food.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. DarkDepths

    DarkDepths Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord

    So again, I think this is actually kind of reasonable. I freely admit that I don't have any idea how the universe came to be. It could have been a God, it could have been some natural fluctuations in virtual particles, I don't know. But if there is a God, I'm much more inclined to believe that it was a creator who got things started and then left them alone to evolve and mutate. If such a God exists, then it should be indistinguishable from natural processes, from our perspective, and so whether or not such a God exists isn't really a relevant question, to me.

    That said, I can respect a religious position that still accounts of science. I can't really understand it, but at least I can respect the willingness to at least consider that at least in some cases, observable reality trumps ancient writings.
  7. theMightyME

    theMightyME Editor in Chief of TVEnthusiast

    what you are describing is theological evolution NOT creationism

    as I said earlier in this thread there are a lot of christian scientists who believe in evolution and disregard creationism without giving up on their religious doctrine. They just believe that god is at the center of evolution. That doesn't negate evolution at all, the theory of evolution doesn't specify the exact source of our origin, as you said the big bang could have been god's doing... but adding god into the equation does not make it creationism... creationism is the belief that everythign was made with specific purpose... as in, man came into existence from no primitive ancestor
  8. TechnoHobbit

    TechnoHobbit Ash nazg durbatulûk

    Thanks, an interesting read.
    Subjects of this sort are a challenge to talk about in a truly "scientific" sense. Direct evidence is hard to come by and experiments and the testing of hypotheses are are more or less impossible. The theories discussed are forced to rely primarily on indirect circumstantial evidence and conjecture, which does run contrary to science.

    I guess a more accurate wordage would simply be that creationism is a viable theory as opposed to macroevolution. Both are currently lacking direct evidence and are virtually impossible to prove or disprove via the scientific method (or even get close to such), but both have a good degree of indirect and circumstantial evidence. One has to connect the dots and conclude what is most likely.
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
  9. theMightyME

    theMightyME Editor in Chief of TVEnthusiast

    creationism is a theory with no scientific evidence to back it up, should we rule it out entirely as it has not been disproved, of course not, but you can't simply say we should teach it side by side with evolution as their are countless theories that exist or can exist without scientific backing but which cannot be directly disproved

    we should only teach what has scientific merit behind it, and then also teach that science is ever changing and that many other possibilities can exist.... teachign that another theory can exist though, is not fair game to teach a theory with no scientific backing, that makes no sense.

    there is more evidence to be found in elon musk's ridiculous theory that we are in a computer simulation then there is evidence in favor of creationism... and his theory is fun to ponder and consider, but nobody is saying "hey, why aren't we teaching kids the theory that we are all just a computer simulation in schools alongside evolution as equal theories?"

    so I am not saying creationism should not be discussed, but rather that it has no place in schools, atleast not regular schools, it has a place in private religious schools and in Sunday school where it is taught as religious doctrine... but NO religious doctrine should be taught in public schools... or as part of an accredited education in science... (philosophy maybe)

    the second you teach creationism as a legit theory in science you have to then weigh it against every other religious ideology, and every other possible theory that cannot be proven or disproved scientifically, and that is a f'n mess

    I think that the thing that makes creationism laughable (for me) is that most christian scientists don't believe in it either.. they believe in what Travis described, which is NOT creationism, and as such, is something that I DO NOT find laughable....


    as for atheism and agnosticism... neither are religions, they are just words, and their definitions are not mutually exclusive... you can be an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.... ro countless other word combinations that describe your personal belief structure...

    I would say that Matt is a gnostic theist, travis seems to be somewhere between a gnostic theist and an agnostic theist.... I consider myself an agnostic atheist, and I believe that is where DD seems to land as well... an agnostic atheist does not believe in god, but also does not discount the possibility, they don't believe, but they also don't KNOW... where as a gnostic theist believes in god, and KNOWS their belief is founded.

    I think the confusion about agnosticism and atheism comes from some theists' desire to see each as a religion, ratehr than just as words...

    atheism is not a religion, agnosticism is not a religion, even theism is not a religion.... they are just words, they are like genres.... I am both action and adventure... an action adventure

    christianity is a religion, and all christians are theists, but not all theists are christian

    christianity isn't just a word, it isn't like a genre... it is like a franchise... Matt is The Fast and the Furious.... not just an action drama, now which entry to the franchise he is varies greatly, but he has a franchise that he belongs to... where as I do not

    somebody who sees themselves as "spiritual" but not part fo any religion would be an example of a theist that doesn't have a "franchise"... just a "genre"
  10. Odo

    Odo Well-Known Member

    It's still not a proof. So, it doesn't make it better than intelligent design so far.

    I'm not talking about God or Genesis. I'm talking about intelligent design being as reasonable as abiogenesis. Nobody needs to demonstrate the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob before talking about intelligent design.

    "Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer. We can determine that a system was designed by examining the system itself, and we can hold the conviction of design much more strongly than a conviction about the identity of the designer."
    Michael J. Behe, Professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University​

    Is Intelligent Design Falsifiable?

    Many explanations have been changed or abandoned throughout the history of the science. We can't tell if evolution or abiogenesis will have been discarded in a century or two. I won't abandon one explanation because of a better one and I don't know if abiogenesis is the better one.

    I think we're talking about different things.

    Creationism for me is the general view that life was somehow designed. I've never quoted the Bible here, I've been quoting professors and scientists.

    Maybe an alien from outer space has designed life on Earth. I don't know. Or maybe it was God as the Bible says. As a believer, I believe it was the God.

    I don't have more knowledge than those guys:

    The relevance to intelligent design in biochemistry is plain. Design is evident in the designed system itself, rather than in pre-knowledge of who the designer is. Even if the designer is an entity quite unlike ourselves, we can still reach a conclusion of design if the designed system has distinguishing traits (such as irreducible complexity) that we know require intelligent arrangement. (One formal analysis of how we come to a conclusion of design is presented by William Dembski in his recent monograph, The Design Inference (Dembski 1998).)
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Koenig

    Koenig The Architect

    I would argue that both the theory of evolution and intelligent design fall under the category of "pseudo science", as neither can be directly observed, measured, or otherwise tested. Yet one is held to a completely different standard than the other.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Shoulder

    Shoulder Shouldy McShoulderface chippin' in

    The essential ingredients and building blocks of the universe, and DNA would indicate that we have in fact tested, and verified many of the things you're outlining. It can hardly be interpreted as pseudo science.

    Intelligent Design is an interesting thing because it seems to imply that the only possible explanation is some incredibly intelligent being or something rather started it. Well, first off, what exactly is intelligence? What do we perceive as intelligent? It's a relative term because what were intelligent beings hundreds of millions of years ago would be considered rather primitive by today's standards. In other words, intelligence itself has evolved over time.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Koenig

    Koenig The Architect

    However both of those can be applied to both the theories in question. Yes they exist and we can prove them, but how they came to be and in such an order we can not. We have no way to prove or disprove that either theory can have an exclusive claim on those observations.

    Agreed, although from the perspective of "Intelligent Design" it would be the equivalent to or greater than something even beyond "Super Intelligence". In a general sense however, intelligence is more of a relative question.

    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2017
  14. repomech

    repomech resident remnant robot relic

    [​IMG][/IMG] [​IMG]
    • LOL LOL x 3
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 1
  15. Shoulder

    Shoulder Shouldy McShoulderface chippin' in

    • LOL LOL x 2
  16. simplyTravis

    simplyTravis "A nice guy, but looks like a f'n Jedi!"

    HECK YEAH! I'm glad they have to deal with the same crap us peons do. It's about time. I wish they would have had to deal with Obamacare.
  17. Shoulder

    Shoulder Shouldy McShoulderface chippin' in

    Well, if Trumpcare care gets passed, they'd wish they could stick to Obamacare in the end.
  18. Koenig

    Koenig The Architect

    I want to have "universal" health care; but I don't want Obama or Trump care either. Setting aside the whole consumer and business practices that lead to the situation we are in now, I just wish we could fix the entire mess.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Shoulder

    Shoulder Shouldy McShoulderface chippin' in

    I want a National Health Care plan like my European brothers and sisters all have as much as anyone. But as it stands, I'll take Obamacare over whatever the fuck that piece of shit those GOP folks passed in the House. They've had 7 years to pass their version of ACA, and this is the best they can do? Despicable.
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  20. simplyTravis

    simplyTravis "A nice guy, but looks like a f'n Jedi!"

    Time to stir up the hornets nest.

    What do you guys think of the latest Trump/Comey issue? I have my thoughts but I'm curious to see where everyone lies at the moment.
  21. sjmartin79

    sjmartin79 White Phoenix of the Crown

    I'll just say that I'm not shocked. Everyone said "He'll run America like he runs his business". Well, he is. And I'm very interested to see what it goes from here.
    • Like Like x 2
  22. Shoulder

    Shoulder Shouldy McShoulderface chippin' in

    Some will downplay it, but I think it's a much bigger deal than some are willing to admit. Sure, we know the president has the authority to fire the FBI director; this is nothing new. The problem though is the sheer timing of it all, which makes this whole debacle rather suspect. And then on top of it all with the now recent information of Trump giving classified information to the Russians that was supposedly obtained by Israel, that does not bode well for international relations.

    As Steve said, he is trying to run the country like he runs his business, which I assume means he doesn't actually do anything, expects his name to be on it, and screws over everyone in order to 1up himself.
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 1
  23. Koenig

    Koenig The Architect

    I for one am quite sick of the sheer quantity of news outlets that are focusing almost exclusively on Trump. By reporting on (and generally polarizing along one of two groups perspectives) every single thing he does, it has effectively snuffed out any non Trump related news and often confused any important news actually related to Trump. The Left and the Right are all out of their heads at this point (Or rather that is all we see from either of them in the eyes of the media at large) and it is resulting in one of the most worthless era's of journalism that I have ever seen. The World does not revolve around Trump, and although his actions should certainly be heavily monitored and publicized, we have gone far beyond overkill in regards to what we are getting right now; it is a media overload that is smothering news in general.
    • Like Like x 1
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 1
  24. Shoulder

    Shoulder Shouldy McShoulderface chippin' in

    Maybe Trump should just shut his fucking mouth once in a while, or not tweet some hypocritical comment before the crack of dawn.
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 2
  25. Shoulder

    Shoulder Shouldy McShoulderface chippin' in

  26. Koenig

    Koenig The Architect

    If a person is being an ass, it is within anybodies right to slap them; does not matter if they are a man or woman, white or black, red, green, or even purple.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Juegos

    Juegos All mods go to heaven. Staff Member Moderator

    What I'm getting from this is that we need to add a Slap button to TNE. There are a lot of @FriedShoes posts that can't be liked, loled, or RAPd, and sometimes the smh just isn't enough.
    • LOL LOL x 3
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 3
  28. Koenig

    Koenig The Architect

    I second this notion.
  29. theMightyME

    theMightyME Editor in Chief of TVEnthusiast

    So... I think she deserved it... That being said, he only complicated things by doing it, avoiding violence is best, even if it is deserved... I wouldn't say he should face any retribution, or even be seen as wrong, just that things would likely be better if he hadn't
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Koenig

    Koenig The Architect

    Probably, but at the same time not doing anything would in some ways be worse. Inaction effectively justifies her actions, and paves the way for more disrespectful behavior in the future.
  31. FriedShoes

    FriedShoes MLG Staff Member Moderator

  32. Shoulder

    Shoulder Shouldy McShoulderface chippin' in

    • Like Like x 2
  33. Socar

    Socar Active Member

    I'm lost here and just don't understand why people hate Trump so much here... can someone answer me that as someone who's non-american?
  34. Shoulder

    Shoulder Shouldy McShoulderface chippin' in

    He's a compulsive liar who is turning against his own base. The same base that got him elected in the first place. His first international trip was a big disaster in terms of his lack of understanding on how NATO works, as well as his wife not able to stand him. There's also his ridiculous handshake that he does, which is nothing more than a tactic meant to make others feel inferior to him. He's also a terrible speechwriter and speaker that uses language that would make any 10-year old feel like he/she wrote a novel.

    Let's also not forget the whole Russian investigation ordeal, which in layman's terms basically boils down to a possible link to the Russians tampering with the presidential election, and Drumpf's own campaign, and his staff being involved. A few of his own people have resigned and/or are under investigation, and he's elected people as part of his own cabinet (basically a committee of people with specific tasks assigned to them) who have zero experience in the field they are supposed to represent. For example, the head of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is a climate change denier, and the head of the Department of Education has zero education experience.

    There is also the notion of him planning to back away from the Paris Agreement, which if you don't know is basically an agreement from all the world's countries on their pledge to reduce climate change over a global scale. The US is one of the biggest pollution contributors, and one of the largest economies, so not having the US as part of this agreement is a huge disappointment (which btw only two other countries have not signed, Syria, and Nicaragua). Even North Korea has signed on. North Korea!!! It makes zero sense from a global perspective to pull out of this deal. The world does not revolve around the U.S., but there are a lot of folks who truly think it does.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. simplyTravis

    simplyTravis "A nice guy, but looks like a f'n Jedi!"

    Haters gonna hate.
  36. sjmartin79

    sjmartin79 White Phoenix of the Crown

    All this and so much more.
    Emperor Trump is not looking out for America's best interests; he's looking out for Trump's best interests.
    He's an embarrassment to our country, and other world leaders don't take him seriously.
    He gets triggered by Tweets and Late Night talk show hosts and then publicly reacts to it.
    He's hypocritical, more so than any other government official I've ever seen.
    He believes rules don't apply to him.
    He'll never be impeached, so we have to ride out these 4 years and hope that any of the damage he does isn't irreversible.
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
  37. Juegos

    Juegos All mods go to heaven. Staff Member Moderator

    I think Trump either operates from a genuine belief that by making GOOD DEALS with other rich people somehow the American middle class will benefit, or he just doesn't care and only wants to be loved by the masses while pleasing the rich people that are actually pressuring him all the time. Either way, nothing he does is of any benefit to the American people and our economy.

    I don't think his presidency is that far from what Hillary's would have been like, other than that Hillary knows how to not look like a fool in public - or so it seemed like, until she started playing the victim of a rigged election, when in fact the election was rigged in her favor before the primaries even began.

    Meanwhile my boi Bernie is out there giving a voice to the people, and enabling young progressive candidates to launch themselves into local positions of power, forming a flowerbed of progressives that will hopefully result in a populist party, or at least in reforming the Democratic party to some extent.
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 1
  38. FriedShoes

    FriedShoes MLG Staff Member Moderator

  39. theMightyME

    theMightyME Editor in Chief of TVEnthusiast

    Donald Trump is a stupid vile man who is lowering our position among the rest of the world while also enabling hate groups.

    on top of that he is destroying the middle class, elevating the rich further while turning the middle into the impoverished

    he is a thin skinned buffoon, a moron who made his empire on his daddy's money

    then there is the Russia issue, in which it is clear that Russia tampered with our election, and that Trump not only knew it, but is now making moves to act in the interests of Russia, which makes us little more than a puppet state of another country

    He is also a sexual predator who snuck backstage to look at naked teenagers at the ms teen usa pagent, and has been reportedly aggressive in an unwanted fashion with women.

    Even worse, he is willfully ignorant, ignoring briefings amde specifically for him by our intelegnce agencies, and instead relying on biased cable news commentary which he repeats, even after it is debunked

    he tried to ban a religion from entering our country, he referred to Mexicans as rapists and murderers, and much of his trusted advisors hail from extremist organizations with ties to the ku klux klan and neo-nazis

    he is by definition, a demagogue, "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 1
  40. simplyTravis

    simplyTravis "A nice guy, but looks like a f'n Jedi!"

    Honestly, I think a lot of people see his politics and money then take their already bias opinions about those two things and project them onto him. That and he is tearing apart many things Obama put into place that weren't exactly set in stone because he did them under Presidential memorandum or executive order. The Paris Accord (or Treaty in other countries), for example, wasn't properly ratified so we are able to get out of it. It was more of a political move joining it than what actually made sense. There were tons of regulations on the US enacted immediately whereas countries like India and China had many caveats and delays (all the way to 2030 for China) that made it a terrible deal for the US. We currently are already cleaning our air up and polluting less than in the past. There was a report recently that our emissions are at pre-1994 levels. Living in an large petrochemical based area I can attest that the air quality has vastly improved with the use of "scrubbers". I remember in college when they installed them in the plant across the street from the school and it was like a night and day difference. But people tend to ignore the fact that while we are getting cleaner air China and India are getting worse. Then there is the fact that China produces double our pollution and that doesn't take into consideration the ships crossing the ocean from China to other countries that cause massive amounts of emissions and pollution. Then another part of the plan involves giving billions to other countries to assist in this without any real way to police where the money is actually going. There is a ton of room for billions of dollars to be wasted in this kind of deal.

    The Russia stuff is very trumped up at this point. There isn't anything that has stuck in 10 months, nor will there be. Many leading new stories disappear after a weekend and have to be redacted quietly. Yellow journalism at its finest. If people are so concerned about Russian control they should have looked at what Clinton actually did in the past. I found more issue with Clinton allowing the Russians to purchase vast amounts of uranium from us that should have never been allowed.
  41. simplyTravis

    simplyTravis "A nice guy, but looks like a f'n Jedi!"

    Single payer is just not going to work. 400 billion just to run Californian single-payer healthcare is insane. The only person that makes sense is this guy, “We don’t have the money to pay for it,” Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) said. “If we cut every single program and expense from the state budget and redirected that money to this bill, SB 562, we wouldn’t even cover half of the $400-billion price tag.”"

    I'm sure this guy will be called immoral and a terrible excuse for humanity, but at least he won't bankrupt California and make things worse.

    I mean, they think they could afford it by adding an additional 15% payroll tax and another 2.3% tax on business and another 2.3% sales tax for the state, but who would want to live there? Who would want to run a business there? As soon as that happens the businesses will leave faster than they already are from over taxation. Healthcare isn't perfect right now but it's better than single payer if it costs this much a year.
  42. Odo

    Odo Well-Known Member

    Looking at him... by sight... the guy is the most ridiculous politician I've ever seen or heard of. He also sounds demented sometimes. Many are talking about this and I'm starting to believe that the guy's getting crazy.
    • Like Like x 1
  43. TechnoHobbit

    TechnoHobbit Ash nazg durbatulûk

    What this shows is that they need to work on price control mechanisms. In 2013 in Canada total healthcare costs totaled $211 billion with a population of 35.16 million (just 3.98 million less than California currently has) averaging just $5,988 per person.

    If California can even get close to that suddenly it starts making a lot of sense. It doesn't need to be much either, currently California spends $367 billion on health care, including federal, state, and private funds. If they can get to that or below it the added taxes will be a lot easier to deal with.
    • Like Like x 2
  44. GaemzDood

    GaemzDood Well-Known Member

    Just did some thinking.

    Trump is a neoconservative cheeto who is going to get us into another war.
    Fascism = national syndicalism.
    People who use the term fascist entryism have brain damage.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
  45. GaemzDood

    GaemzDood Well-Known Member

    I like how Bernie purposely dodged questions about Venezuela during the democratic primaries, or how he tried to distance himself from his radical past in order to try and pass himself off as a Scandinavian style social Democrat despite the fact that Scandinavia is a market economy in every sense of the word.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
    • Like Like x 1
  46. DarkDepths

    DarkDepths Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord

    What regulations, exactly? And what caveats? Seriously, this is the kind of stuff that Trump spouts with no basis in reality, and that his base eats up, and it is frustrating!

    Read the Paris Agreement, its 27 pages of light reading. Here, it's right here:

    Count how many times "United States" appears, and the number of times "China" appears. I'll give you a hint, if you count more than 0 of either, you've miscounted.

    There are no regulations, and no caveats included in the Paris agreement. The Paris agreement is a statement of a shared goal, and a framework for international cooperation. Here are probably the 2 most demanding passages in the whole agreement:

    4.2 "Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions."

    4.5 "Support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article, in accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11, recognizing that enhanced support for developing country Parties will allow for higher ambition in their actions"

    Very true, although China has recently cancelled construction of over 100 coal plants, and has started deploying the largest Solar installations in the world. India also recently cancelled a 14 gigawatt coal plant and will be investing in solar.

    ... with almost 5 times the population and just coming out of what is effectively a new-age industrial revolution...

    Hard to blame China for that, specifically. You'd have to blame both the source and the destination. China sells, destination buys. And besides, a fairly large reason those ships exist is because of the Western world exploiting cheap labour and lax environmental regulations in developing nations.

    Agreed that there should be oversight into how the money is spent, but on principle I can't disagree with the intent. I have two arguments for this:

    1. The Western world has gotten wealthy thanks in large part to the exploitation of undeveloped nations. It's hard for me to argue that we shouldn't help clean up what we helped to cause in the first place. Which isn't to say that it's all our fault, but it is certainly partly our fault.
    2. If climate change is a global problem (which I will assume it is here), then it doesn't make sense to not help others meet their targets. It's the whole sinking ship comic: [​IMG] If they don't have a bucket, and you have 2 of them, perhaps it is prudent put at least 1 to good use.

    And anyways, "the plan" for the USA was defined by the USA, it wasn't mandated by the agreement in any way.
    • Like Like x 2
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 1
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2017
  47. Shoulder

    Shoulder Shouldy McShoulderface chippin' in

    In simple matters, the US not being part of the agreement is being selfish to the rest of the countries who have pledged an agreement to this. It makes the US come off as arrogant, and quite elitist I think.
    • Like Like x 2
    • R.A.P. R.A.P. x 1
  48. Odo

    Odo Well-Known Member

    Yes, that's how I see this. I'm not a green person at all and personally not quite worried about global warming despair, but the USA is the leader of the West and it's still the leader of the world. When the gov says that wants to get out of NATO and those agreements it's just a shame for the nation. Is it that expensive to keep the Paris agreement promises? I don't think so. Isn't the USA the most powerful country in the world? Yes.

    Trump says that he wants a USA for the Americans, like "stop cleaning the Europe/world dirty". I can understand that, but in this case, USA will have to walk away from being the leader of the world, then the country will have to deal with all the other countries against the USA at ONU and at all other international projects. It's totally embarrassing and bonkers.

    China's still the country that "litter" the planet, yes, but China's also a communist dictatorship that enslaves its subjects. USA shouldn't mention then at all. The world wants to see USA leading the best good efforts of the world and that's good for the USA in my opinion.

    I don't know exactly how much the agreement will cost for the USA future. If it's too much, someone tell me about, but if you ask me, even if Paris agreement was a sheer stupidity, that'd be good for USA to be there just for the image of the country, right?
    • Like Like x 1
  49. Shoulder

    Shoulder Shouldy McShoulderface chippin' in

    An agreement on the US' future with regards to helping the environment would certainly be cheaper at this point to stick with wind, solar, and nuclear and other renewables energies versus sticking with coal, oil, and other conventional means because in the long term it'll cost us a lot more to continue on the same path. Renewables are also going down in price all the time, so we are approaching a fail safe where sticking with conventional means will only be done out of spite than actual legitimate reasons.

    The US owes itself to sticking with the Paris agreement. I can understand the conservative point of view that we should be handling matters here, but then why the hell are we still involved with conflicts that serve no purpose other than to aggravate the radicals to fight us even more? You might even argue that getting into the middle eastern conflicts is why the radicals are coming after us.

    Oh that's, right: it's all about the Benjamin's. That's all it's ever been about, and all it ever will be. These people don't care about America or its interests. They only care about their money. You control the money, you control them.
    • Like Like x 2
  50. theMightyME

    theMightyME Editor in Chief of TVEnthusiast

    not to mention, even the corporations that you think would be opposed to the sanctions of the Paris accord are for it... that even includes Exxon... major corporations are saying that renewable energy will also create a lot of jobs and opportunities for business growth

    pulling out makes no sense
    • Like Like x 1
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
Community Hang-Out I've seen some things. War stories from other communities. Mar 6, 2016
Community Hang-Out The Lowest Common Denominator: Sex, Drugs, and Violence, These Are A Few Of My Favorite Things.... May 9, 2013
Community Hang-Out Geek Things: Non Video Game Youtube vids Jun 25, 2012

Share This Page