Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Legiondude said:

Which is why startup minded types are trying to head east of the Rockies and start up a "Blue Collar tech" version in various points out in the heartland

 

Sadly, they are just spreading a terminal disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

The right political establishment's support (along with some left support) for the drug war, which is the cause of most gun crimes, is, in my opinion, to blame for most of the violence we see. Crazed gunmen, wether politically active or not, are a statistical anomaly.  Maybe getting stoned would help a lot of those freaks out too? 

 

Sounds like there are structural problems in the capitalist-controlled silicon valley that is rewarding left-wing views in order to pander to a certain market over another. 

 

The only president that probably never got death threats was Old Tippecanoe because he had the sense to give himself pneumonia and die immediately after winning his election. 

 

I will agree that the war on drugs, like the war on poverty, has done at best nothing to solve the problem, and realistically has exacerbated it.

 

Most problems in society can be tied directly to the existence of prol scum. We have multiple wars against the symptoms of the problem, but nothing that addresses the problem itself.

 

The a fair number of lefties like to point out how the war on drugs and banning certain substances only creates an unsafe environment for it's consumption and a black market for it's trade, but somehow they think that banning guns isn't going to have the same outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ulric said:

 

Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles, you know?

 

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but quite a bit of terrorism is perpetrated by radical Islamists.

 

Not all lefties are crazed gunmen, but a fair number of crazed gunmen happen to be on the left side of the spectrum. The shootings are usually not politically motivated, either. The issue that comes into play here is that every time there is a shooting, the vast majority of main stream media comes out with conjecture and misinformation as to the perpetrators political alignment and affiliations. After the theater shooting in Aurora, the media went digging through Tea Party records and found someone with a similar name to the shooter, picked it up and ran with it. Turns out, it was some fucked up college kid who went off his meds (which is a trait that shows up more than once, by the way). Then they play the blame game and go on parade pointing fingers at every conservative and pro gun organization that they can find. The left leaning media paints anyone who disagrees with them on gun control with the broad brush of things such being complicit with or even guilty by association of murdering children on national TV. If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty and blanket discrimination, start there.

 

PS, more examples.

 Ebay, Google, and other major players on the online world harassing, banning, blocking, demonetizing, censoring or in other ways suppressing opinions that dissent from their left leaning world view. I know of businesses that have had their Ebay account frozen because there we selling slings that could be used on AR-15s. That was the day that I learned that, according to Ebay's customer service department, it is AGAINST THE LAW!!!! to sell slings for "Assault Rifle 15s" on Ebay. Dating sites have shadow banned people who have pictures of firearms in their profile. Google suppresses search results that are against their ideology. Twitter is confirmed to be shadow banning conservatives based on certain algorithms. YouTube constantly goes after conservatives, and they have started shutting down channels that feature firearms. These are companies that have no business bringing up politics, but it seems to be at the very core of their modus operandi. Do you need more examples? The right has some bad apples for sure, but the left has orders of magnitude more, and they hold influential positions in society.

 

Also, do we know how many death threats Trump and his family have received?

 

If the shootings are not politically motivated, then how does it even matter if the gunman is a "leftie", and how do you even know there political viewpoint?  Do you have their voting records?  Anyhow, I suspect your definition of a "leftie" is probably so broad as to encompass everyone to the left of Steve Bannon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It demonstrates a pattern of thought and behavior that is, for the lack of a better term, comorbid with other patterns. It doesn't always have to exist with them, but it is more likely to. Similarly, it can exist without them, but it is less likely to occur in the scenarios.

 

The point that I'm trying to make is that the media will automatically and incorrectly assume the political affiliations of a shooter, and will try to associate the shooter with their political enemies as a way to gain leverage in the court of public opinion to help push an agenda. But, just like trying to villify the AR-15, the numbers don't add up. The initial coverage of the YouTube shooter was wall to wall. They interrupted scheduled programming for well over an hour for uninterrupted news coverage of the situation. As soon as they found out who the shooter was, that story was dropped like a potato fresh out of Chernobyl reactor core 4. The church shooting in Texas was also forgotten rather quickly, but because there was someone there with a rifle who stopped the shooter.

 

So, you assume that I paint people with a broad brush, and by the your point of reference you assume that I'm on the whackjob right side of the spectrum? I will tell you what I assume. I assume that people who are more susceptible to being driven by their emotions tend to have poorer impulse control that those who are not. I assume that emotionally driven people are more likely do things that make themselves feel good, even if it is not actually beneficial or possibly even detrimental. I also assume that people who are more heavily influence by their emotions also have the mentally of "if it feels good, do it" and tend to be on the left side of the spectrum. This last one might be stretching it a little too much, but I assume that people with poor impulse control who react to their emotions are more likely to do things like go on a shooting spree.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ulric said:

It demonstrates a pattern of thought and behavior that is, for the lack of a better term, comorbid with other patterns. It doesn't always have to exist with them, but it is more likely to. Similarly, it can exist without them, but it is less likely to occur in the scenarios.

 

The point that I'm trying to make is that the media will automatically and incorrectly assume the political affiliations of a shooter, and will try to associate the shooter with their political enemies as a way to gain leverage in the court of public opinion to help push an agenda. But, just like trying to villify the AR-15, the numbers don't add up. The initial coverage of the YouTube shooter was wall to wall. They interrupted scheduled programming for well over an hour for uninterrupted news coverage of the situation. As soon as they found out who the shooter was, that story was dropped like a potato fresh out of Chernobyl reactor core 4. The church shooting in Texas was also forgotten rather quickly, but because there was someone there with a rifle who stopped the shooter.

 

So, you assume that I paint people with a broad brush, and by the your point of reference you assume that I'm on the whackjob right side of the spectrum? I will tell you what I assume. I assume that people who are more susceptible to being driven by their emotions tend to have poorer impulse control that those who are not. I assume that emotionally driven people are more likely do things that make themselves feel good, even if it is not actually beneficial or possibly even detrimental. I also assume that people who are more heavily influence by their emotions also have the mentally of "if it feels good, do it" and tend to be on the left side of the spectrum. This last one might be stretching it a little too much, but I assume that people with poor impulse control who react to their emotions are more likely to do things like go on a shooting spree.

 

 

 

I didn't assume anything.  Based on every comment you have made here, it seems to me that you are a rather conservative guy in terms of your political outlook.  That said, I probably should not have compared you to Steve Bannon, that was unfair.   

 

As to who is more likely to commit mass murder with a firearm, the only really consistent pattern I have seen is that it's almost always males.  Most have been white males, but since they also make up the majority of the male population, that doesn't really tell us much.  Quite a few seem to fit into the "young misfit with mental health issues" catagory.  Anger against women seems to be a pretty common pattern, but there is also angry, incoherent political beliefs, or in the Charleston situation, racial prejudice as a motive.  The Vegas shooting is perhaps the most frustrating since it caused the most damage and the motivations of the shooter are so unclear.  The weirdest is the recent shooting at the Youtube headquarters carried out by an Iranian woman upset about online video monetization!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Two things spring to mind on reading this:

 

1)  There is a cogent and internally coherent argument to be made that a falling unemployment rate isn't necessarily a good thing.  Low unemployment rates per se are not always an indicator of optimal economic health.  They might indicate that a lot of people are stuck in jobs that aren't the most productive ones possible, and future businesses might have a harder time getting going because there is no pool of available workers to draw on.  That's assuming things are on the up and up; the numbers could be gamed in a number of ways, like adjusting the number of people who are considered to be "looking" for jobs, or by placing people in economically meaningless make-work jobs.  However, this does need to be balanced against the fact that employment has substantial pro-social externalities.  The optimal employment rate for keeping everyone sane and happy is probably a lot higher than the optimal employment rate for best economic growth.

2)  I don't fucking care lol.  The economics spokesman under Obama tried to claim that the recession wasn't as bad as it looked by trying to pass off the first derivative of the unemployment rate vs. time as the unemployment rate.  Trump drumming up buzz based on ambiguous economic indicators that are at least actually true is peanuts compared to the bullshit that Obama would spout that everyone was supposed to just accept.  The establishment is a pack of murderous liars and thieves, and they've proven their incompetence over decades.  If they're bitching and moaning that Trump is going to burn everything to the ground, then fucking good.  They're in closer proximity to Trump than I am, they'll catch on fire first.

 

3zV1BpP.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

The economics spokesman under Obama tried to claim that the recession wasn't as bad as it looked by trying to pass off the first derivative of the unemployment rate vs. time as the unemployment rate. 

 

It was the second derivative IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Two things spring to mind on reading this:

 

1)  There is a cogent and internally coherent argument to be made that a falling unemployment rate isn't necessarily a good thing.  Low unemployment rates per se are not always an indicator of optimal economic health.  They might indicate that a lot of people are stuck in jobs that aren't the most productive ones possible, and future businesses might have a harder time getting going because there is no pool of available workers to draw on.  That's assuming things are on the up and up; the numbers could be gamed in a number of ways, like adjusting the number of people who are considered to be "looking" for jobs, or by placing people in economically meaningless make-work jobs.  However, this does need to be balanced against the fact that employment has substantial pro-social externalities.  The optimal employment rate for keeping everyone sane and happy is probably a lot higher than the optimal employment rate for best economic growth.

2)  I don't fucking care lol.  The economics spokesman under Obama tried to claim that the recession wasn't as bad as it looked by trying to pass off the first derivative of the unemployment rate vs. time as the unemployment rate.  Trump drumming up buzz based on ambiguous economic indicators that are at least actually true is peanuts compared to the bullshit that Obama would spout that everyone was supposed to just accept.  The establishment is a pack of murderous liars and thieves, and they've proven their incompetence over decades.  If they're bitching and moaning that Trump is going to burn everything to the ground, then fucking good.  They're in closer proximity to Trump than I am, they'll catch on fire first.

 

3zV1BpP.png

 

 

Let us not forget that the Obama administration also tried to call unemployment a good thing. It was an opportunity to spend time with the family, or pursue hobbies that you had let slip by without all the stress of having to work all the time. I believe they used the term "funemployment". Also, in that article they finally point out the bullshit numbers manipulation that was happening under Obama, but claim that it's happening under Trump (and it might be, too, who the fuck knows). I'm not surprised by any of this, though, considering how much the left accuses everyone else of exactly what they themselves are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ulric said:

 

 

Let us not forget that the Obama administration also tried to call unemployment a good thing. It was an opportunity to spend time with the family, or pursue hobbies that you had let slip by without all the stress of having to work all the time. I believe they used the term "funemployment". Also, in that article they finally point out the bullshit numbers manipulation that was happening under Obama, but claim that it's happening under Trump (and it might be, too, who the fuck knows). I'm not surprised by any of this, though, considering how much the left accuses everyone else of exactly what they themselves are doing.

 

If you can find a credible source for an Obama administration official using the term "funemployment", I'd very much like to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2018 at 11:39 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I didn't assume anything.  Based on every comment you have made here, it seems to me that you are a rather conservative guy in terms of your political outlook.  That said, I probably should not have compared you to Steve Bannon, that was unfair.   

 

As to who is more likely to commit mass murder with a firearm, the only really consistent pattern I have seen is that it's almost always males.  Most have been white males, but since they also make up the majority of the male population, that doesn't really tell us much.  Quite a few seem to fit into the "young misfit with mental health issues" catagory.  Anger against women seems to be a pretty common pattern, but there is also angry, incoherent political beliefs, or in the Charleston situation, racial prejudice as a motive.  The Vegas shooting is perhaps the most frustrating since it caused the most damage and the motivations of the shooter are so unclear.  The weirdest is the recent shooting at the Youtube headquarters carried out by an Iranian woman upset about online video monetization!  

The 3 most common reasons tend to be:
-Sexual frustration.
-Sadism

-Inability to climb the dominance ladder, or put in a easier term, inability to leave a mark in the world.

 

This easily explains why young males make up the largest group. 

 

If you need a source, I might see if I can find the article, been a long time however. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

If you can find a credible source for an Obama administration official using the term "funemployment", I'd very much like to see it.

 

My mistake, it was just the left wing media that was using that term en masse. I could be forgiven for mistaking them with administration officials, though, since they were practically part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2018 is wild. Also Arizona, elect better people

 

http://www.horse-news.net/2018/05/gop-rep-from-arizona-asks-about-furries.html

Quote

GOP Rep from Arizona asks about furries on Twitter; becomes one hours later thanks to Brony artist UPDATED

A Republican State Representative from Arizona may have set an internet record; going from total obliviousness to full blown furry in under 24 hours.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Oliver North is now the new President of the National Rifle Association.

 

Well, if there's anyone experienced in making sure weapons get into the hands of undesirables over the express wishes of Congress and the Federal government, it's Oliver North!

 

...

 

...

 

What?

 

Too soon?

 

...

 

And of course, Wayne LaPierre is continuing in his lucrative job as Vice Grand Vizier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Trump really wants to do something different in the AfPak region.....I reckon (discreetly, or you'll discredit him) throwing some weight behind this guy would be a bloody good idea (and please FFS protect him this time, do not lose him like we lost Massoud):

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43827660

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Trump pulling the US out of the Iran nuke deal (against the advise of all of our allies and his own Secretary of Defense) puts him in a very good position heading into negotiations with North Korea.  If I'm Lil' Rocketman Kim, I might be suspicious of any deal made with USA under Trump considering his willingness to arbitrarily pull the US out of the Iraq deal for reasons that seem to be based solely on his own domestic political goals and not on anything that Iran had done to violate the agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a bit too busy the past week or two with the hours I've been putting in. And in that short time I feel woefully behind the times with how fast politics continues to move in the Trump era; like a spider monkey speedballing meth and heroin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Similar Content

    • By T___A
      Reposting for those that didn't see it the first time around:

       
      https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-true-story-of-collusion_2684629.html
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

       
      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
       
       
       
       
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
       
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
       
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 
       
       
       

       
       
      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
       
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
       
       
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
       
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
       
       
      Mining:
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
       
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/&
      http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/
       
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
       
       
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
      https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion
      https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html
       
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
       
      Map over the south pole:
      http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan
       
       
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization. 
       
       
×