US Trump Administration Discussion Thread

[Phantom Roxas]

Why "dangerous"? Is that a threat? If someone has criticisms of Trump, then they should be allowed to express those without fear of retribution. I don't have much confidence in a President-Elect who's volatile and can't take the slightest ounce of criticism.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why "dangerous"? Is that a threat? If someone has criticisms of Trump, then they should be allowed to express those without fear of retribution. I don't have much confidence in a President-Elect who's volatile and can't take the slightest ounce of criticism.

I mean the alt-right had a golden opportunity to moderate and grow their base given the coverage they'll get thanks to Trump

 

Instead they go on the Trump and Bannon are misguided and not one of us route. Democrats wanted a crack down on the AR from Trump, and doubling down is the best way to do it

 

Source is from here

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/opinion/sunday/what-the-alt-right-really-means.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I'm still of the opinion that Spencer hi-jacked the term "alt-right" and used it to describe his faction within a larger alt-right umbrella including other factions and people he doesn't speak for. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm still of the opinion that Spencer hi-jacked the term "alt-right" and used to describe his faction within a larger alt-right umbrella including other factions and people he doesn't speak for. 

Ehh, I think Brightfire is actually right, that a lot of disaffected moderate Dems and Republicans needed a new party, and alternate right seemed like a good way to not be the dems or the gop

 

But I guess I can call myself an independent and be done with it now. Spencer's stuff is revolting

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

It might look like I'm just splitting hairs here, but I say this because Richard Spencer reeks of controlled opposition and I'm not someone who'd identify as right-wing, let alone alt-right.

[epicmemesbro]

I took that test before, I usually got right-leaning anti-government cosmopolitan reactionary if I'm in the free market mood or centrist authoritarian total-isolationist cosmopolitan reactionary if I would rather get things done. 

 

Richard Spencer's American Policy Institute,and Jared Taylor's American Renaissance are tame compared to European nationalist groups in my eyes. Spencer used the term Alt-right during the early days of Obama's presidency, he ran a magazine publication with that name if I recall correctly. I think there is some confusion regarding Spencer's stance on issues as well as his take on the Alternative-Right. I can post some links for clarification.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marine Le Pen is not a surprising choice, however the lack of Nikolaos Michaloliakos is.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I took that test before, I usually got right-leaning anti-government cosmopolitan reactionary if I'm in the free market mood or centrist authoritarian total-isolationist cosmopolitan reactionary if I would rather get things done. 

 

Richard Spencer's American Policy Institute,and Jared Taylor's American Renaissance are tame compared to European nationalist groups in my eyes. Spencer used the term Alt-right during the early days of Obama's presidency, he ran a magazine publication with that name if I recall correctly. I think there is some confusion regarding Spencer's stance on issues as well as his take on the Alternative-Right. I can post some links for clarification.

 

 

 

Marine Le Pen is not a surprising choice, however the lack of Nikolaos Michaloliakos is.

That's actually her niece 

 

I'm on team Fillon not Le Penn

 

It's gonna be super interesting to see if Renzi gets btfo'd today

 

Austrian guy went too right this election, sad to see him lose, but expected. But 46% of the vote is nothing to scoff at

 

---

 

 

 

A pretty good Q/A w/ out next Sec. Def

 

---

 

More Results

 

Arizona certifies its results: Trump 1,252,401 (48.7%), Clinton 1,161,167 (45.1%), Others 159,597 (6.2%). Dems cut margin by 5.5% vs. '12.

 

IL certifies: Clinton 3,090,729 (55.8%), Trump 2,146,015 (38.8%), Others 299,680 (5.4%). Only Midwestern state Dems gained ground vs. '12.

 

Iowa certifies: Trump 800,983 (51.1%), Clinton 653,669 (41.7%), Others 111,379 (7.1%). Largest swing state swing to GOP vs. '12 (15%)

 

Nebraska certifies its results: Trump 495,961 (58.7%), Clinton 284,494 (33.7%), Others (7.6%).

 

 

Provided President Elect Trump perform well, I can very clearly see this map happening. The formation of the west-wall is pretty clear (Trump only lost Nevada by 2.4% compared to Romney's 7%, but in 4 years I think even Trump won't be able to stem California's influence)

 

And the Rustbelt and Appalachia will go further red.

 

Hardest lift is Virginia for Trump and hardest lift is Arizona for the dems. Both very possible. To win VA, Trump needs his message to be the same in the SOVA, but campaign as a social moderate in NOVA, which really isn't hard (since he is)

 

---

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/05/ivanka-trump-to-meet-with-al-gore-to-discuss-climate-issues/?postshare=4541480960087340&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.64ca54a33a53

 

Trump moderates on climate change

[vla1ne]

 

---

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/05/ivanka-trump-to-meet-with-al-gore-to-discuss-climate-issues/?postshare=4541480960087340&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.64ca54a33a53

 

Trump moderates on climate change

oh gods yes. this is something that i've wanted more than almost anything, the fact that it was gore who leaned him on it is... interesting to say the least, but i'll take what i can get in any case. ivanka seems to be a nice tuner for trumps views. she eases him into the left leaning positions, and hopefully he builds something constructive out of that in the future. his cabinet's already got a decent amount of people with opposing views overall, but i've still got my worries about his taxes and climate change views.

 

 

also, i now ship Ivanka and Gore.. somebody please help me.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

oh gods yes. this is something that i've wanted more than almost anything, the fact that it was gore who leaned him on it is... interesting to say the least, but i'll take what i can get in any case. ivanka seems to be a nice tuner for trumps views. she eases him into the left leaning positions, and hopefully he builds something constructive out of that in the future. his cabinet's already got a decent amount of people with opposing views overall, but i've still got my worries about his taxes and climate change views.

 

 

also, i now ship Ivanka and Gore.. somebody please help me.

Rule 34, but for you, Rule 35.

 

So I've been very harsh on this matter, and I think I should probably moderate. So here goes

 

Yes, Climate Change is real. The increase of CO2 emissions will then increase the amount of Water vapor in the atmosphere which will raise temp and kill our oceans. The other side of this is there are people in the Appalachia who are dying and turning to drugs without jobs, which an aggressive CC policy would further worsen. Obama's regulations haven't helped the rustbelt people one bit.

 

But Trump cannot keep his promise. I hesitate to criticize the president elect, because the population here is already very much against him, and at times it seems like this thread is a Winter v everyone to defend Trump. But, that being said, he cannot save coal. Natural Gas is more energy effective, and for a cheaper price too. Trump can lower regulations and lessen the death of coal. Which he should, because that can delay the death of coal until the current generation of miners hit retirement age, but it's not a long term solution for the mining population. He needs to create some other manner of low skilled labor for those workers.

 

And I think that's where his 1 Trillion Dollar Infrastructure project will come in (he somehow managed to convince speaker Ryan to back it even)

 

Natural Gas is also a sugar boost. Since the only real worker intensive portion is the creation of the pipelines, after that the only people who are needed are the meager amount of workers on the oil fracking sites, or the oil rigs, or the oil refineries. Needless to say, not a huge job area.

 

It's worse with renewable energy. Nuclear requires a certain amount of skill in it's workers. Solar and Wind are basically human-free. The energy sector, isn't a place where human labor has a future. President Trump can delay and create an alternative job route for those people trapped in this rock and hard stone situation, but he cannot save them and the current pathway.

 

As for coal, there are things you can do, you can capture the CO2 emitted and use it other purposes. Like say fire extinguishers, or this new method of making ethanol from it. The coal emissions actually contain plenty of material that can function as starting material for other products (likes you can use sulfur compounds to make sulfuric acid, the most produced chemical in the US)

 

If only the Green Left was willing to work with us, I think we could have Paris AND save the Rustbelt. 

 

Now, Vice President Gore once said Mount Kilimanjaro would be snowless by now

 

That is clearly wrong, but that's a message I've been hitting on for a while, the rate at which the climate change advocates are saying the earth is dying, is inaccurate, but the trajectory is very much true, as would be apparent to anyone with a basic understand of physics

 

Boy am I gonna regret this post when Jesse, Brightfire, and Roxas wake up

 

---

 

 

There's hope. Huntsman and Rohrabacher would both be amazing. They're both expects on China and Russia respectively, Trump cannot go wrong with either of them.

 

Gov. Romney is not popular among Trump people because of how viciously he attacked Trump, also he's not a Russia ally

Gen. Petraeus is convicted in Hillary-type type crimes

Mayor. Rudy worked with nations that that aren't America friendly, I attacked HRC for it, so I cannot support Rudy for it, also he's been a war-hawk. Also he's a better fit for Homeland Security or better Director of National Intelligence (DNI)

Sen. Corker is in a vital spot in the Senate, it's not a smart idea to lose him

Sen. Manchin is better as Sec. Energy

 

The other two guys are more CEOs, there's enough of them on the cabinate

 

 

---

 

As you know, I'm obsessed with Virginia, because it really stings that President Trump lost my home state. 

 

https://bearingdrift.com/2016/11/10/corey-stewart-cost-trump-virginia/

 

There's some lessons there pertaining to why he lost Prince William County (he lost the other 5 NOVA counties too though)

 

It's not unexpected however, he underperformed Romney by 10% in all of them.

 

Take Loudoun county, the swingiest of the 5,

 

Obama 51, Romney 47

Clinton 55, Trump 38

 

Fairfax

 

Obama 60, Romney 39

Clinton 65, Trump 29

 

Prince William (wasn't as awful)

 

Obama 57, Romney 41

Clinton 57, Trump 37

 

Alexandria 

 

Obama 71 Romney 28

Clinton 77 Trump 18

 

Arlington 

 

Obama 69 Romney 29

Clinton 77 Trump 17

 

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

 

You simply cannot hemorrhage suburban NOVA republicans like that and win, yes, he killed SOVA, improved on all Romney's margins, but his NOVA performance was abysmal 

 

And it's not even hard for a republican, since Rep Comstock, an anti-LGBT (or was as recent as 2014) and anti-abortion advocate won re-election in district 10 covering loudoun county and Prince William county. There's lessons from Trump to take. My state isn't out of reach for him. He can easily sweep it by having a strong worker message AND a social moderate message up north (like pro-LGBT).

 

Also probs would be nice not to have Clinton's friend as governor create 60k new votes for Clinton, and have a sitting governor be the opposition VP. Comstock as is a very good challenger for Kaine though due to her strength in NOVA. 

 

I'll keep updating about VA politics, because this is actually a state I deeply care about

 

---

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/308800-trump-and-taiwan-breaking-from-convention-is-progress

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-taiwan-phone-call-was-weeks-in-the-planning-say-people-who-were-involved/2016/12/04/f8be4b0c-ba4e-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.89e6cdd38cca

 

The Taiwan snafu was long planned

 

FYI, to dodge the paywall on these sites, just go to incognito mode that y'all use for your Rule 34 browsing, 

 

---

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.46d0e029117a

 

Investigations Pentagon buries evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste

 

Where can we possibly get money for our Military and the wall, and health care without raising the debt...gee I wonder. This is some horrifying stuff. People need to lose their jobs over this

[vla1ne]

Rule 34, but for you, Rule 35.

 

But Trump cannot keep his promise. I hesitate to criticize the president elect, because the population here is already very much against him, and at times it seems like this thread is a Winter v everyone to defend Trump. But, that being said, he cannot save coal. Natural Gas is more energy effective, and for a cheaper price too. Trump can lower regulations and lessen the death of coal. Which he should, because that can delay the death of coal until the current generation of miners hit retirement age, but it's not a long term solution for the mining population. He needs to create some other manner of low skilled labor for those workers.

 

And I think that's where his 1 Trillion Dollar Infrastructure project will come in (he somehow managed to convince speaker Ryan to back it even)

 

Natural Gas is also a sugar boost. Since the only real worker intensive portion is the creation of the pipelines, after that the only people who are needed are the meager amount of workers on the oil fracking sites, or the oil rigs, or the oil refineries. Needless to say, not a huge job area.

 

It's worse with renewable energy. Nuclear requires a certain amount of skill in it's workers. Solar and Wind are basically human-free. The energy sector, isn't a place where human labor has a future. President Trump can delay and create an alternative job route for those people trapped in this rock and hard stone situation, but he cannot save them and the current pathway.

 

As for coal, there are things you can do, you can capture the CO2 emitted and use it other purposes. Like say fire extinguishers, or this new method of making ethanol from it. The coal emissions actually contain plenty of material that can function as starting material for other products (likes you can use sulfur compounds to make sulfuric acid, the most produced chemical in the US)

 

If only the Green Left was willing to work with us, I think we could have Paris AND save the Rustbelt. 

 

Now, Vice President Gore once said Mount Kilimanjaro would be snowless by now

 

That is clearly wrong, but that's a message I've been hitting on for a while, the rate at which the climate change advocates are saying the earth is dying, is inaccurate, but the trajectory is very much true, as would be apparent to anyone with a basic understand of physics

 

Boy am I gonna regret this post when Jesse, Brightfire, and Roxas wake up

you know, i forgot all about that rule. may as well invoke it later.

 

but from bottom to top on this quote i feel like switching up my response method, so sue me al gore's main message wasn't that the mountain would be devoid of snow, but that the damage would hit a point where it would be irreversible in the next decade, now, seeing as he's not actually an authority, and more like a mouthpiece, it's expected that his facts would be off, but the point remains, and i assume you yourself have already acknowledged as much. the projections are a lot less... clear on it that he was trying to be, but the signs do point to the earth heading towards being "not human friendly" in the future, and that's th point that needs to be focused on.

 

as for the next portions to save the coal mining industry, one wa or another it's going to crash, the problem iwill remain regardless, so i se no reason to worry about how soft the landing blanket is, when getting one put out to start with would be the better way to spend his time. why would you need to invest them in natural resources when you could move them into other fields and mitigate the total weight of the unemployed over multiple fields? such as construction, it's not a permanent solution, but it's a strong start, and if possible you could then move another batch towards the towards the agricultural fields, move another batch into education to raise the overall learning grade of the rust belt, and so on ans so forth. not one size fits all solutions, but good moves to move those who can afford versatility, and less than crippling moves for those who cannot. move some into agriculture, into agriculture, and you've successfully dispersed a large portion of the fallout. will there be some sore butts? yep, but the bullet will be out of the wound, so they'll heal and get over it. next up, you focus on the youth, which takes you back to education, trump's got no real influence in the educational sphere that i know of, but he could definitely push buttons to provoke those who do to improve the lot of public education students. an educated public is a great start to a strong society, so baby steps. 

 

it's not always about the large solution, sometimes you can think of ways to break the problem into smaller categories. any objections on your end?

[VCR_CAT]

Rule 34, but for you, Rule 35.

 

So I've been very harsh on this matter, and I think I should probably moderate. So here goes

 

Yes, Climate Change is real. The increase of CO2 emissions will then increase the amount of Water vapor in the atmosphere which will raise temp and kill our oceans. The other side of this is there are people in the Appalachia who are dying and turning to drugs without jobs, which an aggressive CC policy would further worsen. Obama's regulations haven't helped the rustbelt people one bit.

 

Jobs is always a concern, but the shifting of work into different sectors is just a part of progress. As new technologies are invented and new methods replace old ones, jobs are going to be lost and new ones made. It's honestly just the way things work. If anything, this shouldn't be a deterrent from following through with these policies, but rather something that needs to be kept in mind as investments in different sectors and research is done. However, I don't think that pursuing CC policies is going to worsen these issues without solution; it just means another facet to the issue that needs to be kept in mind and addressed.

 

But Trump cannot keep his promise. I hesitate to criticize the president elect, because the population here is already very much against him, and at times it seems like this thread is a Winter v everyone to defend Trump. But, that being said, he cannot save coal. Natural Gas is more energy effective, and for a cheaper price too. Trump can lower regulations and lessen the death of coal. Which he should, because that can delay the death of coal until the current generation of miners hit retirement age, but it's not a long term solution for the mining population. He needs to create some other manner of low skilled labor for those workers.

 

And I think that's where his 1 Trillion Dollar Infrastructure project will come in (he somehow managed to convince speaker Ryan to back it even)

 

Natural Gas is also a sugar boost. Since the only real worker intensive portion is the creation of the pipelines, after that the only people who are needed are the meager amount of workers on the oil fracking sites, or the oil rigs, or the oil refineries. Needless to say, not a huge job area.

 

It's worse with renewable energy. Nuclear requires a certain amount of skill in it's workers. Solar and Wind are basically human-free. The energy sector, isn't a place where human labor has a future. President Trump can delay and create an alternative job route for those people trapped in this rock and hard stone situation, but he cannot save them and the current pathway.

 

As for coal, there are things you can do, you can capture the CO2 emitted and use it other purposes. Like say fire extinguishers, or this new method of making ethanol from it. The coal emissions actually contain plenty of material that can function as starting material for other products (likes you can use sulfur compounds to make sulfuric acid, the most produced chemical in the US)

 

There's actually a lot of opportunity for jobs to made in the area of green technology. Like I said, progress often means that old jobs are replaced and/or lost, and the issue with blue collar jobs, especially those in the coal and oil industries, is that it's not as secure as we may like. Sooner or later, those industries will either collapse or be replaced, and many jobs may be lost. These aren't infinite resources, and whether production slows down or automotation outright replaces jobs, jobs will be lost. The blue collar sector is just, frankly, not something that will be around forever. But that's a part of progress; old jobs are replaced or made obsolete, and new jobs are made.

 

And this may or may not mean existing energy sectors; as I've posted in another thread in general, new technologies for electrical generation are being invented that may or may not have been considered at all (literal power crystals now), which if that technology is made good enough, means a new market in diamond manufacturing and so on. But the big problem with how actually near the exhaustion of oil reserves is, it means we need to work towards alternatives. Our livelihood depends on fossil fuels; it's how we get food from farms to cities and how we transport people to get to their jobs and equipment and everything. Powerplants, etc. If nothing is done to replace these industries, or if our preparations of replacing fossil fuels are not adequate, it means a lot of much worse things than some lost jobs or a dent in the economy.

 

I understand that jobs are a concern when approaching climate change issues, but those jobs are at risk either way, if not now definitely later. Absolutely this is a major concern that needs to be kept in mind, but for progress to be made there will be some lost jobs.

 

 

 

Now, Vice President Gore once said Mount Kilimanjaro would be snowless by now

 

That is clearly wrong, but that's a message I've been hitting on for a while, the rate at which the climate change advocates are saying the earth is dying, is inaccurate, but the trajectory is very much true, as would be apparent to anyone with a basic understand of physics

 

Boy am I gonna regret this post when Jesse, Brightfire, and Roxas wake up

 

The when/how of the earth's death is definitely up in the air, but there's still a lot of issues that are present and a lot more pressing with Climate Change and related subjects such as the oil industry. Issues that may not mean impact as significant as the death of the earth or humanity, but absolutely will mean major humanitarian crisis or economic crisis.

 

Frankly, the human race is going to be better off the sooner we can replace fossil fuels. And I don't mean replace with something mediocre; I mean the sooner we can just outright make that technology obsolete, the better. And this is going to mean investment and research, and the carbon tax is meant to be a part of that; giving companies an economic incentive to invest in alternative and cleaner technologies. Whether it's fixing the Fusion problem (humanity is going to receive a big boon once we get that going) or making those diamond energy cells working really well, it's hard to deny that we won't benefit from discovering better alternatives.

 

The point of acknowledging Climate Change and pursuing these policies, at least to me, is about pursuing this progress. The environment needs to be protected (it's the planet we live on and space colonization is still at least another 100 years off) and our technology needs to be advanced; why not have both?

[Aerion Brightflame]

Alternatively you could consider that for the most part low skill work is dying.

 

Low Skill work is usually a form of manual labour or simplistic number crunching; Which can be automated. And for the most part is has been gradually automated over the past 100 years because automation is simply cheaper and more efficient. That's not going to change, if anything automation will only get more and more efficient. It will become a more and more extensive part of life.

 

Trying to force low skill jobs to keep existing against the way the market is trying to push is a losing battle. You have to adapt to meet automation, because it's going to put a lot of people in almost every non academic industry out of buisness. It's actually not a case of it just being low skill jobs either, there's speculation it could drastically reduce the number of doctors needed for check-ups and such.

 

 

The same is true here with coal, or natural gas. The jobs simply aren't going to last indefinately. The resource is finitie to an extent it's reasonable to consider. Investing in, and trying to force jobs into this market isn't a solution, it's an extention. You delay the eventual problem without actually offering a solution at any point. Like even if you ignore all of the enviromental arguments about coal, imagine it's this perfect clean energy source, doubling down in it and other fossil fuels is a poor choice, because they are finite to the extent we may run out within our lifetime. Why is it wise to invest further into it instead of trying to create jobs somewhere else that isn't slowly dying off? Be it energy, be it construction, be it whatever.

 

If we ignore the suggestions I should be making for UBI right now, then you have to start considering the future beyond this. You say 'we need low skill jobs'. We need them because there is a significant part of the workforce who is low skilled say. But low skill jobs are disappearing from every sector, and will continue to do so. Maybe instead the solution is to improve the skill level by boosting education and such, and then create more higher skilled jobs to compensate this increase? You'll increase social mobility amongst other things because more of the workforce can now technically work in higher better paying industries.

 

It's good that you accept the argument we've been making about the death of coal and such now (Because we have been telling you this s*** for a while now), but the issue of the low skill workforce needing jobs is a bigger issue because low skill workers are going to get squeezed out of the market just as they have already. And the solution either comes from a massive restructuring of benefits, or a massive restructuring of the way the job market breaks down. The current methods are a little unsustainable.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

People don't live forever, we just need to keep them working for 10-15 years before we can offload them onto SS and other welfare benefits

 

It's on the millennials not to make the same mistakes as their parents and find professions that will last (and pay)

 

---

 

Speaking of Social Security, somehow Trump convinced Paul Ryan not to mess with it, but I'm honestly not sure I entirely agree. We're in a period of inflation, we lose about 2% of what we have each year. For the period 1950 to 2009, if you adjust the S&P 500 for inflation and account for dividends, the average annual return comes out to exactly 7.0%

 

The problem with Social Security was it was made for a different age. One were there were more workers than retirees, and where the dollars was deflating (a dollar today would be worth a dollar and five tomorrow)

 

What was true in FDR's times, is no longer true. If we can get over the boomers, it should ease up, but I hear there are now more millennials than baby boomers?

 

Eventually the problem is gonna come back unless we target negative inflation rates (bad for a couple reasons) or we find a way to grow the money we put in, ie. diversified stock investment. 

 

---

 

Vla1ne and Drew, I'll get back to you two after classes

[Aerion Brightflame]

But then how do you pay for the SS and Welfare when you have an issue of an ever decreasing amount of jobs for a generation that has to provide more and more to the state to cope with the needs of the upcoming generation? 

 

These people then become a relative negative on the economy when they retire, and there are a lot of them.

 

It's not even like we can slide into the jobs they are leaving behind, because I imagine a lot of the jobs won't get replaced. They'll be folded into existing jobs within a company where possible, or simply not bothering to replace them because they were superflous?

 

How then does our generation cope with needs of both our generation and the generation before us in a shrinking and increasingly automated jobs market where competition is more intense than ever?

 

And it still wouldn't solve the issue of the transition, nor really the issue of putting people in the industry out of a job. People will still work in the industry, so you still cripple families whenever you intend to do it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Millenials don't get any duh

 

Unless you invest SS smarter

Sucks but a reality we all knew was coming

[Sunshine Jesse]

That's actually entirely incorrect. Social Security will have enough funding for a while now, especially if they remove the cap on how much people can be taxed for it.

[Aerion Brightflame]

That's... that's not a solution though?

 

The state will still have to find a way to allow these people to survive. It has to, it's can't let them starve or go homeless because we are talking about a huge chunk of the population. I mean f***, Boomers are probably going to lose a lot of there pensions and such even if they invested in a smart manner because of how s*** things are going to get in theory if some of the speculative guesses are correct.

 

Simply saying 'Tough you work until you are dead' doesn't solve any of these issues. Or even attempt to.

 

It doesn't solve automation removing jobs, or resource scarcity that will drive up prices, or the ever growing wealth inequality. It doesn't deal with the student loan bubble or the next housing bubble

 

How the f*** do you think we solve this s***? It's arguably too late to start looking at solutions for these problems, but we have too. We are approaching financial catastrophe on multiple different fronts, so how the f*** are we going to do anything about it?

 

Sorry to approach a gloomy note, but I feel like you are understating the extent to which some of these problems might stretch. It's a more extensive issue than 'death of the coal industry in the rustbelt'

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That's actually entirely incorrect. Social Security will have enough funding for a while now, especially if they remove the cap on how much people can be taxed for it.

Sure, but can you guarantee that you'll get as much as you put in if you do that? Social Security would have funding if we shot the 1% and took all their wealth too :)

 

---

 

Are any of y'all gonna comment on the Pentagon Scandal???

 

---

 

http://nypost.com/2016/12/05/report-buried-trump-related-hate-crimes-against-white-kids/

[Sunshine Jesse]

Sure, but can you guarantee that you'll get as much as you put in if you do that? Social Security would have funding if we shot the 1% and took all their wealth too :)

 

---

 

Are any of y'all gonna comment on the Pentagon Scandal???

 

---

 

http://nypost.com/2016/12/05/report-buried-trump-related-hate-crimes-against-white-kids/

Yes, you can mathematically guarantee that you'd get as much as you put in if a billionaire paid the same relative social security tax as a millionaire, and it wasn't capped at $118,500 no matter your wealth.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes, you can mathematically guarantee that you'd get as much as you put in if a billionaire paid the same relative social security tax as a millionaire, and it wasn't capped at $118,500 no matter your wealth.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13017#newsletter1

 

I see you're right here actually. But I still think in the long run the assumption that growth will have a constant growth rate might not be true. 

 

When this is the case, those who put more money into Social Security will suffer the greatest losses. I think the government still needs to diversify their investment and start putting some of the SS money in carefully managed government profiles. That's the only way to have an insurance for social security

 

Just killing the cap, which I support*, won't suffice

 

*provided equal indexed returns 

 

 

 

Jobs is always a concern, but the shifting of work into different sectors is just a part of progress. As new technologies are invented and new methods replace old ones, jobs are going to be lost and new ones made. It's honestly just the way things work. If anything, this shouldn't be a deterrent from following through with these policies, but rather something that needs to be kept in mind as investments in different sectors and research is done. However, I don't think that pursuing CC policies is going to worsen these issues without solution; it just means another facet to the issue that needs to be kept in mind and addressed.

 

 

There's actually a lot of opportunity for jobs to made in the area of green technology. Like I said, progress often means that old jobs are replaced and/or lost, and the issue with blue collar jobs, especially those in the coal and oil industries, is that it's not as secure as we may like. Sooner or later, those industries will either collapse or be replaced, and many jobs may be lost. These aren't infinite resources, and whether production slows down or automotation outright replaces jobs, jobs will be lost. The blue collar sector is just, frankly, not something that will be around forever. But that's a part of progress; old jobs are replaced or made obsolete, and new jobs are made.

 

And this may or may not mean existing energy sectors; as I've posted in another thread in general, new technologies for electrical generation are being invented that may or may not have been considered at all (literal power crystals now), which if that technology is made good enough, means a new market in diamond manufacturing and so on. But the big problem with how actually near the exhaustion of oil reserves is, it means we need to work towards alternatives. Our livelihood depends on fossil fuels; it's how we get food from farms to cities and how we transport people to get to their jobs and equipment and everything. Powerplants, etc. If nothing is done to replace these industries, or if our preparations of replacing fossil fuels are not adequate, it means a lot of much worse things than some lost jobs or a dent in the economy.

 

I understand that jobs are a concern when approaching climate change issues, but those jobs are at risk either way, if not now definitely later. Absolutely this is a major concern that needs to be kept in mind, but for progress to be made there will be some lost jobs.

 

 

 

 

The when/how of the earth's death is definitely up in the air, but there's still a lot of issues that are present and a lot more pressing with Climate Change and related subjects such as the oil industry. Issues that may not mean impact as significant as the death of the earth or humanity, but absolutely will mean major humanitarian crisis or economic crisis.

 

Frankly, the human race is going to be better off the sooner we can replace fossil fuels. And I don't mean replace with something mediocre; I mean the sooner we can just outright make that technology obsolete, the better. And this is going to mean investment and research, and the carbon tax is meant to be a part of that; giving companies an economic incentive to invest in alternative and cleaner technologies. Whether it's fixing the Fusion problem (humanity is going to receive a big boon once we get that going) or making those diamond energy cells working really well, it's hard to deny that we won't benefit from discovering better alternatives.

 

The point of acknowledging Climate Change and pursuing these policies, at least to me, is about pursuing this progress. The environment needs to be protected (it's the planet we live on and space colonization is still at least another 100 years off) and our technology needs to be advanced; why not have both?

P1

 

Yes, I agree VCR, but telling a 45 year old man that he needs to get a new job isn't fair. It's the duty of the government to accommodate the people to the best of it's ability. And in the case of coal and natural gas, while yes, they should be eliminated eventually, you CAN use the byproducts productively with current technology, so you can be green and still burn coal. 

 

Clean Coal as I've understood from Trump's plan would involve just that, re-using the byproducts of coal burning. 

 

So far we agree that we need to progress from non-gas/coal energy sources, but you've yet to tell me why we need to fully diversify. Neither Solar nor Wind are anywhere close to being as effective as nuclear. Any Hydro-electric has the added loss of greatly damaging the food chain (look at the salmon crisis)

 

Agreed again, but you simply cannot cut your losses like that so callously when millions of people will be turned to the street. Yes it's not sustainable forever, but it is sustainable long enough, and we have a duty to those people who know no other life, and reasonably cannot learn a new trade.

 

I'm not sure how you consider a carbon tax a incentive. That's a penalty on firms. A more effective measure would be to reward companies for capturing their byproducts and turning it over to the government or other companies that can put it to proper use. This would foster multiple industries instead of hobbling one to benefit the other

 

I would love to have both, and the way to do that is ^^

 

 

That's... that's not a solution though?

 

The state will still have to find a way to allow these people to survive. It has to, it's can't let them starve or go homeless because we are talking about a huge chunk of the population. I mean f***, Boomers are probably going to lose a lot of there pensions and such even if they invested in a smart manner because of how s*** things are going to get in theory if some of the speculative guesses are correct.

 

Simply saying 'Tough you work until you are dead' doesn't solve any of these issues. Or even attempt to.

 

It doesn't solve automation removing jobs, or resource scarcity that will drive up prices, or the ever growing wealth inequality. It doesn't deal with the student loan bubble or the next housing bubble

 

How the f*** do you think we solve this s***? It's arguably too late to start looking at solutions for these problems, but we have too. We are approaching financial catastrophe on multiple different fronts, so how the f*** are we going to do anything about it?

 

Sorry to approach a gloomy note, but I feel like you are understating the extent to which some of these problems might stretch. It's a more extensive issue than 'death of the coal industry in the rustbelt'

It's a solution, but not a good one. I assume not every millennial is as financially fortunate as me.

 

It's what's gonna happen if as Jesse says, the cap isn't removed, or as I say, profiles are further diversified

 

There's risks to both, Jesse's can unduly punish people who put more in, my idea isn't a sure fire guarantee annually, and instead averages out to the ideal solution. Which isn't ideal since you can't tell someone to come back in 10 years 

 

We should honestly do both to cover our bases

 

 

you know, i forgot all about that rule. may as well invoke it later.

 

but from bottom to top on this quote i feel like switching up my response method, so sue me al gore's main message wasn't that the mountain would be devoid of snow, but that the damage would hit a point where it would be irreversible in the next decade, now, seeing as he's not actually an authority, and more like a mouthpiece, it's expected that his facts would be off, but the point remains, and i assume you yourself have already acknowledged as much. the projections are a lot less... clear on it that he was trying to be, but the signs do point to the earth heading towards being "not human friendly" in the future, and that's th point that needs to be focused on.

 

as for the next portions to save the coal mining industry, one wa or another it's going to crash, the problem iwill remain regardless, so i se no reason to worry about how soft the landing blanket is, when getting one put out to start with would be the better way to spend his time. why would you need to invest them in natural resources when you could move them into other fields and mitigate the total weight of the unemployed over multiple fields? such as construction, it's not a permanent solution, but it's a strong start, and if possible you could then move another batch towards the towards the agricultural fields, move another batch into education to raise the overall learning grade of the rust belt, and so on ans so forth. not one size fits all solutions, but good moves to move those who can afford versatility, and less than crippling moves for those who cannot. move some into agriculture, into agriculture, and you've successfully dispersed a large portion of the fallout. will there be some sore butts? yep, but the bullet will be out of the wound, so they'll heal and get over it. next up, you focus on the youth, which takes you back to education, trump's got no real influence in the educational sphere that i know of, but he could definitely push buttons to provoke those who do to improve the lot of public education students. an educated public is a great start to a strong society, so baby steps. 

 

it's not always about the large solution, sometimes you can think of ways to break the problem into smaller categories. any objections on your end?

It'll become unsustainable in ~30 years, well past the retirement age of the current generation of miners. Just make sure millennials aren't going into mining and we're largely good.

 

Which brings us to your point of the education sphere. He does actually. His EdSec is a pretty prolific common core dissident. So education hopefully won't be so shackled and standardized in the future. It likely won't make all the difference since that still leaves the problem of the lowest common denomination schools, but it's a start.

 

His student debt plan is pretty intelligent too, more sustainable than Bernie's, less taxing on the students than Hillary's

 

---

 

Couple of introspective questions for y'all now

 

1) we're talking about occupations without a future, what future does "creative writing" or "art history" have? Will they be high paying? Will the salary there be able to stand up to inflation? If not, should they really be supported when those majors will likely create more state dependence

 

2) Is the increased automation worrisome to anyone else? Won't humans eventually become reliant on machines to the point where we're the superflouse factor?

 

3) As for helping education, Universities are so rabidly political, aren't you largely subsidizing brainwashed political goons?

 

---

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/06/hillary-clintons-voters-say-they-were-holding-their-noses-just-as-much-as-donald-trumps/?utm_term=.194aaa989d58&tid=sm_tw

 

Was thinking of Jesse and Tenta when I read this

 

---

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/06/pence-wont-directly-say-if-he-supports-trumps-call-for-35-tariffs/?utm_term=.667ffbef65bd

 

Just one of those lol stories, but smart, shows he cares less about a new AF1, than he does for the people. Straight out of President Obama's playbook in '08

 

Hmmm

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/06/pence-wont-directly-say-if-he-supports-trumps-call-for-35-tariffs/?utm_term=.667ffbef65bd

 

This on the other hand isn't good news. 

[Sunshine Jesse]

 

1) we're talking about occupations without a future, what future does "creative writing" or "art history" have? Will they be high paying? Will the salary there be able to stand up to inflation? If not, should they really be supported when those majors will likely create more state dependence

 

2) Is the increased automation worrisome to anyone else? Won't humans eventually become reliant on machines to the point where we're the superflouse factor?

 

3) As for helping education, Universities are so rabidly political, aren't you largely subsidizing brainwashed political goons?

 

1. Creative writing is different from art history because creative writing still involves producing a product that has demand. But majors like art history probably shouldn't be supported.

 

2. It depends. I'm not worried about automation, I'm worried about how the government will react to it. Will it try to create new 'fake' jobs just to make people work? That's the nightmare scenario in my mind. Jobs that don't produce anything shouldn't be jobs; people should just be given the money if they won't be able to produce anything.

 

3. Universities being heavily politically slanted is mostly right-wing propaganda. It's part of the right's attempt to discredit education and intellectualism. That being said, funding should go to public education, not private, and universities are mostly private. If anything, private education needs to be abolished outright (a lot like private health insurance does), which'd definitely remove much of the theoretical political slant.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/06/hillary-clintons-voters-say-they-were-holding-their-noses-just-as-much-as-donald-trumps/?utm_term=.194aaa989d58&tid=sm_tw

 

Was thinking of Jesse and Tenta when I read this

I'm not the least bit surprised that her voters were reluctant. I understand why people voted for her because she wasn't Trump, but not being Trump didn't make her good by default. Interesting counter to the people who went out of their way to defend her for literally everything.

 

1. Creative writing is different from art history because creative writing still involves producing a product that has demand. But majors like art history probably shouldn't be supported.

 

Thank you. I do intend to actually do something with my creative writing degree, so it's ridiculous to claim that it's without a future.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

roxas, I get the do what you love angle, but you do realize there are more secure occupations right? Very few JK Rowlings happen :/

*its less like to have a future

[Sunshine Jesse]

roxas, I get the do what you love angle, but you do realize there are more secure occupations right? Very few JK Rowlings happen :/

*its less like to have a future

Not entirely true. Writing is a business as much as anything else. A more accurate statement would be to say there are very few people who know how to turn a profit from writing. Look at people like Stephen King who print money with every book or short story they write.

 

There's a science to it. I could go more in-depth on how it works but I don't feel like writing a wall of text over it.

[Phantom Roxas]

You cited creative writing as "occupations without a future", so I'm going to hold you to your word. I understand that not every writer will become like J.K. Rowling, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume when you asked "If not, should they really be supported when those majors will likely create more state dependence", are you suggesting that funding for those educations should be cut? So… instead of encouraging creative writing majors from finding more secure jobs, you just want to prevent people from becoming creative writing majors altogether?