US Trump Administration Discussion Thread

[Tentacruel]

To be fair though, Gabbard is technically still serving in the US military (National Guard), so yeah, she has seen her share of combat roles. But otherwise, she's done good for Hawai'i (enough that she got re-elected). If she gets picked for VA or something, then it'll work. 

 

Speaking of her meeting with Trump though, a lot of local Democrats here aren't too pleased about it (or they see her as flip-flopping). Don't know if any of them saw these tweets though, as local news didn't cover that. 

 

 

A little note that she's 35 right now, so she has age on her side. Though yeah, she was nominated as VP for Sanders during his run, so that might do her some good in the long run. 

 

Question is, will the United States accept a Samoan president (and one who practices a different religion than a good chunk of the country), or are they going to try to demerit her candidacy b/c of these facts? She was born in American Samoa (her mother was a US citizen at the time though) and practices Hinduism. 

It's a longshot, and dumb establishment Republicans will try to demerit her, but she's got my support regardless.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Here's to me hoping he just hasn't offered her a spot yet, but is considering it

 

I would honestly most likely vote for her if she ran. Her foreign policy is very in line with my vision.

 

I don't like her stance on abortion, but you've got to give somewhere to get ahead.

 

President-Elect Trump would be very smart to offer her a spot as his SoS, or at the very least SoVA or UN ambassador 

Speaking of her meeting with Trump though, a lot of local Democrats here aren't too pleased about it (or they see her as flip-flopping). Don't know if any of them saw these tweets though, as local news didn't cover that.  

Yeah it's crazy, like 56% of Dems want Democratic party to impede Trump vs about 32% of GOP in 2008

 

Tulsi is a rare breath of fresh air

 

I'm a big fan and have been for a while

[vla1ne]

Yeah it's crazy, like 56% of Dems want Democratic party to impede Trump vs about 32% of GOP in 2008

 

Tulsi is a rare breath of fresh air

 

I'm a big fan and have been for a while

that's partisanship right there. hate the guy? obstruct everything he does, and then claim he hasn't done anything. it wouldn't be the first time that either side has done so. but it feels like it's becoming far more of a popular idea than it used to be, which is worrying. not to fire on all democrats, but those who want to shut down the entirety of the elected candidates reign just to appease their salt are being childish. how do those who want his term impeded expect anything (good or bad) to get done i they succeed? not to mention she's a democrat, somebody on relatively similar lines to their own views, why would they not want her closer to trump, when she could more easily reign in/ temper any plans they might oppose into something easier to swallow?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

that's partisanship right there. hate the guy? obstruct everything he does, and then claim he hasn't done anything. it wouldn't be the first time that either side has done so. but it feels like it's becoming far more of a popular idea than it used to be, which is worrying. not to fire on all democrats, but those who want to shut down the entirety of the elected candidates reign just to appease their salt are being childish. how do those who want his term impeded expect anything (good or bad) to get done i they succeed? not to mention she's a democrat, somebody on relatively similar lines to their own views, why would they not want her closer to trump, when she could more easily reign in/ temper any plans they might oppose into something easier to swallow?

I'm just worried. If you thought what happened to Obama was bad, it's gonna get twice as bad with Trump based on those numbers. I can only hope that it's a lopsided sampling of California and the west coast.

 

American politics has been on a downward spiral since the tea-party and their left-wing equivalents (warren) have taken power. 

 

That's why I long for someone like Gabbard or Trump to have power. A pragmatist rather than an ideologue 

 

Edit:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/22/investing/dow-trump-19000-stocks-alltime-highs/index.html

 

Dow hits new high of 19,000 as Trump rally continues

 

Them construction companies salivating over his 1 Trillion dollar infrastructure plan

[Phantom Roxas]

I'm not sure about other states, but Tulsi Gabbard was the Vice Presidential candidate alongside Bernie Sanders as the approved write-in vote in California, so I highly doubt that we're skewing any numbers.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm not sure about other states, but Tulsi Gabbard was the Vice Presidential candidate alongside Bernie Sanders as the approved write-in vote in California, so I highly doubt that we're skewing any numbers.

No I meant for the "work w/ Trump vs work against Trump poll"

 

I was hoping there that California is the reason why the work against is so high

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-republican-senators-are-most-likely-to-fight-trump/

 

This is a pretty good read :)

 

GA certifies: Trump 2,089,104 (51.0%), Clinton 1,877,963 (45.9%), Others 125,306 (3.1%).

[Aerion Brightflame]

Unless the republicans lost majorities, Trump won't experience the same level of obstruction as Obama did. 

 

After the first two years in which Obama achieved very little (For whatever reasons), the republicans got majorities which meant they could just flat out refuse most of his proposals if they wanted to without any form of negotiations. The Democrats, even if twice as many want to be obstructionist, physically can't because the Republican's have a majority in all relevant branches of government. So long as they are behind Trump, they can pass whatever the funk they want without having to care about the otherside of the isle. In general, in times of needs, the right is far better at falling in line in political votes than the left so it should never be an issue for Trump. 

 

So untill something changes, the Dem's desire to be obstructionist bastards means nothing more than them being bastards. They can't actually achieve the first bit. It sounds petty, but frankly I can understand why they'd want to do so - The Republican's being obstructionist cost them a lot, including a Supreme Court nomination, and caused a government shutdown. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html?referer=http://www.nytimes.com/live/trump-at-the-new-york-times-the-tweets/

 

Thoughts on it when I get home

 

Good Trump:

 

"He acknowledged that Syria was a problem “we have to solve.” But he acknowledged that he had a “different view than everybody else,” a reference to his assertions that the United States should work with Russia in combating the Islamic State and not worry about forcing out the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad."

 

"When he raised a potential change in the libel laws with an associate, Mr. Trump says the person told him, “You know, you might be sued a lot more.’ I said, ‘You know, I hadn’t thought of that.’”"

 

"Mr. Trump confirmed reports that he is strongly considering Gen. James N. Mattis as his nominee for defense secretary. He also said he was surprised when he asked General Mattis about his views on the practice of waterboarding, and General Mattis told him he was opposed to it."

 

"When Mr. Trump was asked whether he condemned an alt-right conference over the weekend in Washington, where some attendees raised their arms in a Hitler-like salute, he said, “I disavow and condemn them.”

 

"Mr. Trump offered a robust defense of his campaign chairman and newly appointed chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon. “If I thought he was a racist or alt-right or any of the things, the terms we could use, I wouldn’t even think about hiring him,” he said."

 

Meh Trump

 

"Mr. Trump brushed aside questions about conflicts arising from his business dealings, declaring that “the law’s totally on my side, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

 

"He then pivoted to an analysis of the campaign, describing it as “18 months of brutality in a true sense.” Mr. Trump reiterated his view that he was “never a fan of the Electoral College” and that he would have preferred to have been elected through a victory in the popular vote"

 

President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Tuesday that he would “keep an open mind” about whether to pull the United States out of a landmark multinational agreement on climate change.

 

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly said he would withdraw from the Paris climate accord. But on Tuesday, he said, “I’m looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it.”

 

 

Bad Trump

 

“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” Mr. Trump said. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.”

 

Pressed on whether he had definitively ruled out a prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, he said, “It’s just not something that I feel very strongly about.”

 

 

Digging in deeper, 

 

"Clean air is vitally important," Trump says about climate change. Says he is keeping "an open mind."- Agreed

Does Trump think human activity is linked to climate change? “I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much."-Agreed, look East

 

On climate change, Trump says he is also thinking about "how much it will cost our companies” & the effect on American competitiveness" -Very good Trump

 

Tom Friedman asks if Trump will withdraw from climate change accords. Trump: “I’m looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it." - Meh Trump

 

My views on Climate change are simple, China is significantly more responsible than America. It's overblown as an issue. But any agreement should be just as hard on China as the US, otherwise we should opt out.

 

PCA disproportional affects US energy, it's just a way for China to maintain it's 7% growth patterns at the US's expense 

 

 

WSJ reports Trump "nearly decided" on Mitt Romney for Sec of State; Nikki Haley for UN Amb; and Gen James Mattis "shoo-in" for Defense Sec -  meh Trump

 

Putting an anti-Russian diplomat as SoS is something I'm very nervous about, he needs Gabbard as SoS

 

Other two picks are cool (Nikki and Gen. Mattis)

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/mitt-romney-leads-donald-trumps-picks-for-secretary-of-state-1479846765

 

[spoiler=dowhigh]

 

 

 

NV certified results: Clinton 539,260 (47.9%), Trump 512,058 (45.5%), Others 74,067 (6.6%). 

 

OK certified results: Trump 949,136 (65.3%), Clinton 420,375 (28.9%), Johnson 83,481 (5.7%).

[cr47t]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/22/media/trump-new-york-times-meeting/

 

 

 

 

During the meeting, Grynbaum tweeted, Trump was also asked about Breitbart News, the company that Steve Bannon had chaired before being named CEO of the Trump presidential campaign and now a senior counselor to Trump in the White House -- and specifically about concerns regarding Breitbart's coverage of minorities.

 

 

 

"Breitbart is just a publication. They cover stories like you cover stories," Trump responded. "They are certainly a much more conservative paper, to put it mildly, than the New York Times. But Breitbart really is a news organization that has become quite successful. It's got readers, and it does cover subjects on the right, but it covers subjects on the left also. It's a pretty big thing."

 

#Media

 

Also, speaking of the NYTimes;

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

 

 

 

 

Mr. Trump, as it turns out, didn’t care all that much about Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.

 

 

But there are consequences. When his senior adviser, Kellyanne Conway, announced that the incoming administration would not pursue the investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, the response from the right was swift.

 

“Broken Promise,” blared Breitbart, the conservative website that promoted Mr. Trump’s candidacy and gave him the mastermind of his campaign, Stephen K. Bannon. The conservative provocateur Ann Coulter was no more subtle.

 

Judicial Watch, the conservative legal organization that has doggedly pursued Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, also chimed in:

 

“Donald Trump must commit his administration to a serious, independent investigation of the very serious Clinton national security, email, and pay-to-play scandals. If Mr. Trump’s appointees continue the Obama administration’s politicized spiking of a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, it would be a betrayal of his promise to the American people to “drain the swamp” of out-of-control corruption in Washington.”

 

Ms. Conway said Tuesday that it was now Mr. Trump’s intention to move beyond the issues of the campaign and focus on the task of running the country instead. “If Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that’s a good thing,” Ms. Conway said on the MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

 

Thoughts?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/22/media/trump-new-york-times-meeting/

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Breitbart is just a publication. They cover stories like you cover stories," Trump responded. "They are certainly a much more conservative paper, to put it mildly, than the New York Times. But Breitbart really is a news organization that has become quite successful. It's got readers, and it does cover subjects on the right, but it covers subjects on the left also. It's a pretty big thing."

 

#Media

 

Also, speaking of the NYTimes;

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

 

 

 

 

 

Thoughts?

It's not up to the president to prosecute a case or not. That was Obama's mistake.

 

If the AG and FBI wanna go after a case, or if Congress can find evidence, they should.

 

Note, while the FBI may have put a damper on the email case, the foundation case is very much open

 

I've been a fan of Bannon for a long time, so I most agree with PEOTUS's analysis on the matter

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Bad Trump

 

“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” Mr. Trump said. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.”

 

Pressed on whether he had definitively ruled out a prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, he said, “It’s just not something that I feel very strongly about.”

 

It's not up to the president to prosecute a case or not. That was Obama's mistake.

 

If the AG and FBI wanna go after a case, or if Congress can find evidence, they should.

I am quite confused on your stance.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I am quite confused on your stance.

Sometimes in life, you don't like the right thing

 

Would I love to see HRC in Orange and White? Sure, but

 

1) It's likely not what that nation needs right now, with 48% of America voting for her and against Trump

2) Even if that's not the case, Trump should 

a) Not make any statement, it's not his business to say what the AG should or should not do. That's why it's bad Trump. Like I believe he said he personally doesn't want to "hurt" the clintons? And wants the nation to heal? Sure. I appreciate that we have the same line of thinking (at least on the second part). But the president should NOT be making statements on cases like that. I called Obama out when he made statements about Martin v Zimmerman, and I will about Trump in this case

b) I strongly believe, beyond satisfying people like me, that putting HRC in jail would do more damage than help, but again, that's for the FBI and AG to decide, not me or, respectfully, President-Elect Trump to decide 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html

 

President-Elect Trump backing down on torture after talking to the man, who will in all certainty be his SecDef pick. I'm not sure how I feel about this. But I do understand that a general would have more insight into the matter than I would. 

 

No doubt this is music to a lot of people's ears though. I hope he doesn't change on Russia and Syria however. And based on the same NYT interivew, that's one area he's holding firm on 

 

Whatever works

[vla1ne]

it's good to see he's dropped, or lightened up on a lot of what people were trying to nail him on. the torture stance was something that while i wouldn't care enough about on the day-to day, would bother me from time to time enough to object to it overall. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

It's the Guardian so obviously some form of liberal bias is involved, but it's the quotes that matter here. 

The administration plans to cut funding (The article is unclear about how much by) to NASA's Earth Sciences division under the premise that the monitoring it performs is too 'politicised' and that they want to listen to 'solid science, not politicised science'. Bob Walker, a leading adviser, talks about how till now NASA has been undergoing 'Politically correct enviromental monitoring', and that 'we need good science to tell us [The impacts of man on climate change] and science could do that if politicians didn't interfere with that'. Walker further comments that they want NASA to focus on mapping the solar system (And to do so by the end of the century), and leave earth monitoring to other agencies. 

 

So..... I don't really care about the funding being slashed. (Well depending on how much of the funding gets cut, if all 2 billion gets cut and the money and programs don't get given to other agencies. I.E. the specific advanced NASA tech then I'll be outraged), that stuff happens all the time. Which is dumb because of the importance of research, but it happens. I take issue with the reasoning. Slashing a budget of scientific research department whose primary job is modelling and data collection for reasons of 'politically correct monitoring' and 'politicised science' is bullshit, because it implies that if your results disagree with the conclusions we want, you lose funding. 

 

It would, hilariously enough be it's own form of 'politically correct science'. But it's entirely speculative at this point. Again, it's fine to reduce the budget in NASA so long as you don't overdo it, the issue just seems to be the motivation behind slashing the budget. If the adminstration had said: I don't agree with this much money being spent here and that being it, that's technically fine. It fits with the rest of his standpoints on the climate. But slashing the budget because the science has become 'politicised' is an issue. 

 

Maybe one day we will get leaders who just invest heavily into science without strings again. Would be nice to see. 

[vla1ne]

the reasoning is clearly bull. no matter how PC science is, facts are facts. baking soda and vinegar don't change their reaction because of politics, unless they've got actual evidence of results being tampered with leading to false conclusions (which they had damn well better present under that case) they are not doing anybody any good. this seems like climate change denial all over again. the results don't have to agree with your worldview to be factually accurate.

 

but yeah, let's see where this one goes, because it's confusing as hell to me right now.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

It's the Guardian so obviously some form of liberal bias is involved, but it's the quotes that matter here. 

The administration plans to cut funding (The article is unclear about how much by) to NASA's Earth Sciences division under the premise that the monitoring it performs is too 'politicised' and that they want to listen to 'solid science, not politicised science'. Bob Walker, a leading adviser, talks about how till now NASA has been undergoing 'Politically correct enviromental monitoring', and that 'we need good science to tell us [The impacts of man on climate change] and science could do that if politicians didn't interfere with that'. Walker further comments that they want NASA to focus on mapping the solar system (And to do so by the end of the century), and leave earth monitoring to other agencies. 

 

So..... I don't really care about the funding being slashed. (Well depending on how much of the funding gets cut, if all 2 billion gets cut and the money and programs don't get given to other agencies. I.E. the specific advanced NASA tech then I'll be outraged), that stuff happens all the time. Which is dumb because of the importance of research, but it happens. I take issue with the reasoning. Slashing a budget of scientific research department whose primary job is modelling and data collection for reasons of 'politically correct monitoring' and 'politicised science' is bullshit, because it implies that if your results disagree with the conclusions we want, you lose funding. 

 

It would, hilariously enough be it's own form of 'politically correct science'. But it's entirely speculative at this point. Again, it's fine to reduce the budget in NASA so long as you don't overdo it, the issue just seems to be the motivation behind slashing the budget. If the adminstration had said: I don't agree with this much money being spent here and that being it, that's technically fine. It fits with the rest of his standpoints on the climate. But slashing the budget because the science has become 'politicised' is an issue. 

 

Maybe one day we will get leaders who just invest heavily into science without strings again. Would be nice to see. 

He's said his focus is more on space exploration. I think that's a pretty good trade off personally 

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/23/trump-devos-education/94344918/

 

Keeping his promises, pro-Charter School and voucher SoE

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-nominates-nikki-haley-to-be-un-ambassador/2016/11/23/401f4a7a-b183-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

 

Gov. Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador might be shocking, but it's an olive branch to the the GOP, and she's quite competent at negotiating Trade 

 

More importantly, very pro-Trump LT. Gov now becomes Gov of SC

 

Dr. Ben Carson as SoHUD is pretty smart too if Trump wants inner city votes in 2020

 

it's honestly down to Mittens or not now (hopefully not, but looks like Rep Tulsi is out)

 

 

Swing county in PA

[Aerion Brightflame]

He's said his focus is more on space exploration. I think that's a pretty good trade off personally 

 

I already said, I'm not objecting the funding being slashed, I'm objecting the reasoning. 

 

The statement wasn't that it's a trade-off, but that the science NASA was performing was too politicised. Which as V1Ane said is bollocks, because the Earth Science's division monitors. It takes data, and attempts to build a model from it. Unless you have an argument to prove the data sampling is inaccurate (Which I'll bet a lot of money Trump doesn't have or else it would have been given), the data is what it is. It's presentation can be politicised, but the raw data can't be. 

 

Which again, makes the reasoning insane. Because it's saying 'If your science does not agree with our worldview, it will be defunded'. Which works against the scientific process. 

 

They could have just gone 'We are taking money from Climate research and putting it into space research instead' and left it at that. Instead they had to add this weird line that implies that actual scientific research is unwanted if it disagrees with us. Imagine if they start using this argument for everything? If they claim Cigarette's causing cancer is 'politically correct science' and thus wrong. 

 

It's, to use a phrasing you'll dislike, anti-intellectualism, and that should be frowned upon. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well I would say that something is inaccurate based on how pitiful the climate change predictions have been coming out of NASA and their ilk. It'll be interesting to see the investment profiles of NASA leadership. I would not be surprised to see it lopsided towards "Green" companies. Don't mean much, but would be interesting to see all the same

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/23/ben-carson-obamas-housing-rules-try-to-accomplish-/

 

Sec. Carson's agenda seems pretty clear lol

 

Betsy DeVos (Trump's new Sec of Education) was A BIG RUBIO FAN. She and her husband, Dick, together gave $300,000 to a super PAC supporting Rubio, federal records show

 

Jesus...that's like as bad as the reverence my dad had/has for HRC

 

Olive branch I guess

 

The selection of South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador has clear and definite advantages. The first is that she has the skills necessary to advocate for U.S. interests in a hostile forum.

 

Haley came up with the Tea Party movement, in the long political winter of 2009-2010. She has moved to the center since then, but learned the hard way how to confront media critics and political opponents. Turtle Bay is a den of scavenging hyenas; the job requires a lion — or in this case, a lioness.

 

Second, Haley is an excellent representative of what America has become — a tolerant, diverse society to which immigrants like Haley’s family have contributed more than their share. Haley is internationally known for being the governor who took on the Confederate flag, which will draw interest and respect from foreign diplomats. And third, Haley shows that Trump can reach out to his critics — and reward his supporters, like Lt. Gov. Henry McMaster, who will move into Haley’s former role.

 

The major drawback of the Haley pick is that she has no significant international diplomatic experience and no expertise in foreign policy. She has the right positions — she is pro-Israel, for instance, which is refreshing, given Obama’s last few picks — but the task of UN Ambassador is no ordinary diplomatic posting.

 

The UN Ambassador has to know — or to learn — the ins and out of one of the world’s most complicated institutions, where protocol is a virtual battlefield, and words are weapons.

 

Haley is a political pick. She will need experienced hands — and not career State Department bureaucrats — to fill the related slots, such as the deputy UN Ambassador and the  Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights.

 

As much contempt as President-elect Donald Trump and Americans in general have for the UN, it is where wars are won and lost before shots are fired. Merely defending America’s interests is not enough. Haley will need help to press them forward

[Aerion Brightflame]

Predictions =/= data. 

 

You can have the best data in the world and you can make funking awful or inaccurate predictions from it even without cocking it up if you are unaware of all the variables. You can argue that maybe they push poor predictions a little too often, but the models being off doesn't mean the data they collect is bad or the collection methods they use are inaccurate because the climate is an incredibly complex system to model. One that frankly won't get any easier with less funding. 

 

And even if they are innaccurate it's a hell of a leap to go from 'these are shitty models' to 'these are shitty because of politics'. 

 

Have you considered that Trump's Education Sec may have been appointed on the fact she's been a long term vocal activist and spokeswoman for education, and has been head of multiple different foundations that have been working on improving education in multiple states since the 90's? That maybe he appointed this person based on merit and experience rather than political connections and who they've sided with at various points? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Predictions =/= data. 

 

You can have the best data in the world and you can make funking awful or inaccurate predictions from it even without cocking it up if you are unaware of all the variables. You can argue that maybe they push poor predictions a little too often, but the models being off doesn't mean the data they collect is bad or the collection methods they use are inaccurate because the climate is an incredibly complex system to model. One that frankly won't get any easier with less funding. 

 

And even if they are inaccurate it's a hell of a leap to go from 'these are shitty models' to 'these are shitty because of politics'. 

 

Have you considered that Trump's Education Sec may have been appointed on the fact she's been a long term vocal activist and spokeswoman for education, and has been head of multiple different foundations that have been working on improving education in multiple states since the 90's? That maybe he appointed this person based on merit and experience rather than political connections and who they've sided with at various points? 

Maybe not, but repeatedly getting predicitons wrong with good data (the premise) isn't very reassuring 

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the Choice, she's very anti-common core, that's one of the fundamental principles he made to the black community, and if he wants to hit that 20% mark in 2020 he needs to keep it

 

You know my disdain for big doner types like my father, in that light, I was just surprised Trump is adding so many Rubio people to his cabinate (count up to 3 now)

 

If she does as she has promised, I will be the first one to be happy

[Dad]

You can't take me to take this seriously.  If we're cutting research here to explore space (which I wholeheartedly support space exploration) how the hell are we going to survive long enough to actually get there?  You wanna abandon earth because its screwed, and to do what?  Repeat the process on another planet?

[Sunshine Jesse]

You can't take me to take this seriously.  If we're cutting research here to explore space (which I wholeheartedly support space exploration) how the hell are we going to survive long enough to actually get there?  You wanna abandon earth because its screwed, and to do what?  Repeat the process on another planet?

You honestly underestimate how far our technology has come and how fast it stands to still progress.

 

We're talking ~50ish years before climate change starts f***ing us over in ways that we can't just pass off as something it's not. That's easily enough time, if enough R&D is poured into it, to make significant strides. Keep in mind only 66 years passed since the Wright brothers and the moon landing, only 8 years between the first man in space and the moon landing, and the fact that technological progress has been closer to quadratic than diminishing (or even linear).

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You can't take me to take this seriously.  If we're cutting research here to explore space (which I wholeheartedly support space exploration) how the hell are we going to survive long enough to actually get there?  You wanna abandon earth because its screwed, and to do what?  Repeat the process on another planet?

Might be a good thing actually. Mars is kinda cold :)

 

For economics, I'm honestly in the middle-ground, I think we should Cut Taxes (GOP), lower Regulation (GOP), and invest massively in Infrastructure (DEM)

 

The idea is even with a lower tax rate, the economic growth will easily offset the revenue lost in taxes.

[vla1ne]

Might be a good thing actually. Mars is kinda cold :)

while hilarious, i highly doubt 50 years is enough time for a complete system on mars to be both established, tested, and fool-proofed. 

 

 

You honestly underestimate how far our technology has come and how fast it stands to still progress.

 

We're talking ~50ish years before climate change starts f***ing us over in ways that we can't just pass off as something it's not. That's easily enough time, if enough R&D is poured into it, to make significant strides. Keep in mind only 66 years passed since the Wright brothers and the moon landing, only 8 years between the first man in space and the moon landing, and the fact that technological progress has been closer to quadratic than diminishing (or even linear).

 

scientific progress has advanced insanely in the past 100 or so years, but terraforming is a branch that doesn't exactly have the most detailed data behind it. don't get me wrong, we could feasibly reach mars in 50 years, but cutting off decades still isn't the smartest plan forwards. could we do it in 50? yeah, probably, but just because you can finish a test in 30 minutes doesn't mean you wouldn't like to use the rest of the 2 hours to check for mistakes. and that's what i believe dad's getting at. continuing destroying the environment just because we can create a failsafe on another planet is still a bad idea. all the things that go into space exploration, changes in gravity, seasonal shifts, brand new calendar systems, completely new environments to adapt the human body to, the sheer cost to send all of humanity to another planet, building and testing ships to endure the trip and withstand landing so that we don't die on the way there, developing methods to establish proper atmosphere suitable for humanity, ect. there's a lot that goes into planetary migration, and even if you can do it in 50 years, you would be far better off making sure you have 100-200 years of prep time instead.

[VCR_CAT]

You honestly underestimate how far our technology has come and how fast it stands to still progress.

 

We're talking ~50ish years before climate change starts f***ing us over in ways that we can't just pass off as something it's not. That's easily enough time, if enough R&D is poured into it, to make significant strides. Keep in mind only 66 years passed since the Wright brothers and the moon landing, only 8 years between the first man in space and the moon landing, and the fact that technological progress has been closer to quadratic than diminishing (or even linear).

 

Most of you are seriously underestimating what it's going to take actually establish a self-sustaining colony on a different planet. Stephen Hawking has even come out and said that it's going to be at least 100 years before we establish self-sustaining colonize on space; be it stations or on different planets.

 

Even if for some stupid reason we're picking Mars as the planet to live on, regardless of how it has only 40% of Earth's gravity, is frickin' balls cold and even if we manage to somehow terraform the planet it's basically going to be one giant tundra biome, and its distance makes it by and far away from being the most efficient trip to make; there's an entire host of issues to get through before we're able to live on a planet. Issues of building habitats to live in, power generation, manufacturing, farming, issues of what are they going to do about water, what about the huge, glaring problem of the planet's very weak gravity. Before we even think about building any of that, we need to figure out how humans can feasibly and easily live on the planet without their skeletons rotting away in a matter of months, and do so in a way that allows children to be born safely in such an environment and be to able to grow up with functional, healthy bodies and not be crippled because they didn't even have a chance to develop thanks to the environment.

 

This isn't as simple as just giving Earth the middle finger and moving to Mars when it's convenient; you need to stop taking for granted what makes Earth the ideal planet for humans to live on, and how actually possible it is for us to just screw ourselves over before we're given the chance to get off this rock.

 

The idea of cutting climate research because it doesn't line up with one's political views is just insane. For one, research into more efficient and renewable sources of energy is kind of very important. As with any research into newer technologies, it's going to allow humanity to progress further into better and more efficient technology. Ignoring this because you want to shave a few bucks off your gas bill, or because of some tinfoil conspiracy to do with China, is just stupid. Regardless of what anyone here thinks about Climate change at all, denying scientific progress is taking steps backward and does nobody any good.