Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

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

Recommended Posts

Took over 2 weeks of my spare time to get through this thread, but it was worth it :) fun read. 

 

… 

… 

… 

 

Also, the entire legislative, executive, and judiciary branches (along with the FBI/NSA/other alphabet soup agencies) need a good purging; its been to long. 

Spoiler

Image result for stalin

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

Took over 2 weeks of my spare time to get through this thread, but it was worth it :) fun read. 

We all tracked your progress via the likes you were giving us.

 

56 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

 

The state department is mostly independent of Trump at this point in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, T___A said:

We all tracked your progress via the likes you were giving us.

 

 

The state department is mostly independent of Trump at this point in time.

 

Considering that the State Department is part of the Executive Branch, and Trump is the head of the Executive Branch, I find this argument to be somewhat unconvincing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Considering that the State Department is part of the Executive Branch, and Trump is the head of the Executive Branch, I find this argument to be somewhat unconvincing.  

 

The State department is covered by the Pendleton Service Act. Most of its employees cannot be hired and fired at will; this creates an entrenched bureaucracy that mostly does what it wants and sometimes has to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the will of the Executive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T___A said:

 

The State department is covered by the Pendleton Service Act. Most of its employees cannot be hired and fired at will; this creates an entrenched bureaucracy that mostly does what it wants and sometimes has to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the will of the Executive.

 

Either Trump is in charge, or he isn't.  To quote Harry Truman...

 

16-truman.w710.h473.jpg

 

Anyhow, I have a hard time imagining that issues pertaining to UN resolutions are left to people below the "serve at the pleasure of the President" level.  

 

Also, the NYT's article notes that "The intensity of the administration’s opposition to the breast-feeding resolution stunned public health officials and foreign diplomats, who described it as a marked contrast to the Obama administration, which largely supported W.H.O.’s longstanding policy of encouraging breast-feeding."  If foreign diplomats are noting that this marks a change in policy, then it is clearly a directive from the Trump administration and not some lasting legacy from the previous administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Either Trump is in charge, or he isn't. 

 

What?  No, that's a ridiculous oversimplification.  Real power structures are filled with ambiguity, intrigue, and realities that don't line up with paper org structures.

So, sure, on paper the President is in charge of the Executive Branch and therefore everyone in the US Department of State should click their heels and do exactly what he says all the time because that's what the org chart says.  

Meanwhile, in the real world, it hasn't worked that way since 1883.  Or maybe even 1867.

Ask yourself this; if the President has absolute power over all Executive departments, then why hasn't Trump fired absolutely everyone and replaced them all with his toadies?  The US government did work that way at one point.  It was a terrible way for the government to work because every election cycle that a new party took power, every government employee was replaced with some toady of the new president.  So the Republican Party changed it in 1883 to make the vast majority of Executive departmental workers untouchable by politicians with the conspicuous exception of the cabinet-level heads of the departments, who are a vestigial remnant of the old spoils system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump had absolute power over the executive branch then why is there a special council probe by an agency under the executive branch that Trump views as a witch hunt of himself?

Share this post


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

 

What?  No, that's a ridiculous oversimplification.  Real power structures are filled with ambiguity, intrigue, and realities that don't line up with paper org structures.

So, sure, on paper the President is in charge of the Executive Branch and therefore everyone in the US Department of State should click their heels and do exactly what he says all the time because that's what the org chart says.  

Meanwhile, in the real world, it hasn't worked that way since 1883.  Or maybe even 1867.

Ask yourself this; if the President has absolute power over all Executive departments, then why hasn't Trump fired absolutely everyone and replaced them all with his toadies?  The US government did work that way at one point.  It was a terrible way for the government to work because every election cycle that a new party took power, every government employee was replaced with some toady of the new president.  So the Republican Party changed it in 1883 to make the vast majority of Executive departmental workers untouchable by politicians with the conspicuous exception of the cabinet-level heads of the departments, who are a vestigial remnant of the old spoils system.

 

So you are trying to say that a UN delegation made up of State Department and Health and Human resources representatives suddenly shifted policy completely on their own with no input from the President or his appointed Cabinet heads?  By that logic, nothing is Trump's fault if you don't want it to be.  Just blame it all on "deep state."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

So you are trying to say that a UN delegation made up of State Department and Health and Human resources representatives suddenly shifted policy completely on their own with no input from the President or his appointed Cabinet heads?  By that logic, nothing is Trump's fault if you don't want it to be.  Just blame it all on "deep state."

 

That sounds pretty disingenuous to me.

Share this post


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

 

So you are trying to say that a UN delegation made up of State Department and Health and Human resources representatives suddenly shifted policy completely on their own with no input from the President or his appointed Cabinet heads?  By that logic, nothing is Trump's fault if you don't want it to be.  Just blame it all on "deep state."

 

Just because they changed their minds doesn’t mean they were forced to. Perhaps they agree with Trump and were looking for an opportunity to change their policies. Of course, papa Trump could have “influenced” or “inspired” them to change, but you can’t rule out that this might have been voluntary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

Just because they changed their minds doesn’t mean they were forced to. Perhaps they agree with Trump and were looking for an opportunity to change their policies. Of course, papa Trump could have “influenced” or “inspired” them to change, but you can’t rule out that this might have been voluntary. 

 

A public health organization don't just "happen" to change their mind on a topic where there is a worldwide consensus.

Breastfeeding is better for both the infant and the mother's health, pretty much everybody agree on this.

 

This is on the same level of stupidity than his tweet on climate change being a Chinese conspiracy

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385

Share this post


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

 

So you are trying to say that a UN delegation made up of State Department and Health and Human resources representatives suddenly shifted policy completely on their own with no input from the President or his appointed Cabinet heads?  By that logic, nothing is Trump's fault if you don't want it to be.  Just blame it all on "deep state."

 

Yes!  What's so hard to believe about this?  Ever since 1883 the President can only fire the Secretary of State, the rest of the employees of that department are practically untouchable to him.  In fact, it's very difficult for government employees to be fired even by their own departments.  The end result of that is State employees are free to ignore the President.  The only thing keeping this from being obvious is a certain desire to present a veneer of professional normalcy.  The President and the State Department will attempt to make it look like they agree and that they're part of a team even when that isn't true.  Usually this involves the newly-elected President conceding most of their campaign promises.  Remember how G.W. Bush promised a "more humble" foreign policy?  Remember how Obama was going to close Guantanamo Bay?

 

Trump is different because he is willing to feud with the State Department.  And he does.  This is particularly well-documented.

Trump has been trying to get control over the State Department ever since he had Tillerson in charge.  Note the panic and over-reaction.  It's a bloodbath!  Oh the humanity!  Wait, how many employees did Tillerson actually fire?

 

Quote

 

Four top officials were cleared out of the building at the end of January.

 

...

More recently, State Department officials got caught planning to host an event that would have undermined Trump's Cuba policy.  The result?  The event was "postponed."
 

These sorts of reprisals by Trump and his goons seem utterly inconsequential to State, which employs something like 70K people.  And, in an absolute sense, they are.  But what makes Trump different is that he is willing to push back at all.  This is not business as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, T___A said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/trump-picks-brett-kavanaugh-for-supreme-court.html

 

He was a clerk for Kennedy which I suspect clinched it. 

 

According to one story, Kennedy actually negotiated with Trump to get his former clerck named as the nominee.  No idea if the story is true of course.

 

https://www.alternet.org/bombshell-supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-agreed-retire-if-trump-promised-replace-him-brett

 

Share this post


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

 

  Remember how G.W. Bush promised a "more humble" foreign policy?  Remember how Obama was going to close Guantanamo Bay?

 

 

Colli, these are what we call "lies."  Politicians make them all the time to appeal to their base for the sake of winning election.  Do you really think W was all like "I want a humble foreign policy" and the state department was like, "NO!, you must invade the axis of evil!"  Or perhaps W got his dander up after that whole 9/11 thing and then listened too much to the likes of Dick Cheney and John Bolton.  As to Obama and Guantanamo Bay, he made lots of promises to his progressive base back in 2008.  And once he was in office, he showed that he was a pretty typical politician in that he shit-canned most of his promises if they appeared to be too costly politically. 

 

I do not doubt that the State Department is a giant bureaucracy that has a very great deal of institutional inertia built into it.  Which actually proves my point in regards to this whole UN delegation on breastfeeding.  If policy under the previous administration was to vote in favor of the resolution, then it stands to reason that the bureaucratic inertia would continue on in that direction.  The fact that an abrupt change in policy was made would indicate that those in charge of the institution decided to change course.  And since I haven't seen any statements from the current administration denouncing their own delegation to the UN for voting in this manner, I am going to, like a rational person, assume that the current administration is cool with this idiotic stance against breast feeding.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

According to one story, Kennedy actually negotiated with Trump to get his former clerck named as the nominee.  No idea if the story is true of course.

 

https://www.alternet.org/bombshell-supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-agreed-retire-if-trump-promised-replace-him-brett

 

 

I wouldn't be surprized if this was true and was the norm.

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. 
       
       
×