Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

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

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

 

This story has nothing to do with anything.  She wasn't even on the ballot, let alone the Democratic candidate for her district.  Anyhow, if you want to start comparing which party has more nutcase candidates for US house races, I just want to point out that the Republicans can boast of a handful of candidates that are literal Nazis

 

 

Calm down man. I'm mostly just cracking wise by running my "But muh Blue Wave" joke into the ground in the quest for good comedy.

 

Of course the chick is just some random.

 

On the other hand, if it was a "GOP" candidate, this would have made the news crawl on CNN. And there is a healthy bit of irony when it's a Democrat wielding a gun.

 

...

 

(And to be fair, the New York Post covered it but mostly because of the tabloid aspect of it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Lostwingman said:

Politics is projection.

 

 

It's like they don't understand, eventually, the government will declare their speech hate speech and ban it too, if we let that camel's nose under the tent.  The left was far easier to support/take seriously when they were not blatantly anti-free speech.  Ironically, if they did get hate speech laws passed, a bunch of vile leftists who spew hatred at white, and Jewish people would be the majority of the people punished. At least if the law were not written to blatantly attack only right-wingers,  but I don't think the left has fallen that far, nor could they get a biased law passed, and then the supreme court, even a few of the lefties on it, would still kill it.  This is why Trump's judge pics have been so good.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

It's like they don't understand, eventually, the government will declare their speech hate speech and ban it too, if we let that camel's nose under the tent.  The left was far easier to support/take seriously when they were not blatantly anti-free speech.  Ironically, if they did get hate speech laws passed, a bunch of vile leftists who spew hatred at white, and Jewish people would be the majority of the people punished. At least if the law were not written to blatantly attack only right-wingers,  but I don't think the left has fallen that far, nor could they get a biased law passed, and then the supreme court, even a few of the lefties on it, would still kill it.  This is why Trump's judge pics have been so good.   

 

 

These people can't see past their "right side of history" crap. 

 

It seems the courts are still operational though. Getting BTFO of the 9th circuit, ooof.

 

Share this post


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

 

I'm sure they all have their platforms posted on campaign websites in case you want to prove your point.  Anyhow, while I am sure there are a number of democratic candidates who are socialists, I doubt there are any that resemble of the hardline communists of old, demanding the liquidation of the Kulaks and Stalinist re-education camps.  Most of the "democratic socialist" candidates seem to be espousing something more in line with the socialist policies of some of the Western European countries.  

 

Nope, look up Ocasio-Cortez's platform. And look at the party she comes from.

 

The optics of somebody like her who wants to force post-capitalism (which always leads to mass death) are pretty bad - but the no enemies on the left, no friends on the right is the rule du jour for the left these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

It's like they don't understand, eventually, the government will declare their speech hate speech and ban it too, if we let that camel's nose under the tent.  The left was far easier to support/take seriously when they were not blatantly anti-free speech.  Ironically, if they did get hate speech laws passed, a bunch of vile leftists who spew hatred at white, and Jewish people would be the majority of the people punished. At least if the law were not written to blatantly attack only right-wingers,  but I don't think the left has fallen that far, nor could they get a biased law passed, and then the supreme court, even a few of the lefties on it, would still kill it.  This is why Trump's judge pics have been so good.   

 

Pretty sure Harvard is a private university. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, as history people, we can all agree that Communism and National Socialism are both failed ideologies. They aren't failed because they are distasteful, they are distasteful because they are failed.

The Nazis were early political standard bearers for scientific racism and eugenics. At the time, it wasn't known what negative effects this would have - and it turns out it leads to horrific racially-motivated genocide (and a shitty economy). 

 

The Communists bore the standard of aggressive forced post-capitalist economic theory. At the time, it wasn't known what negative effects this would have - and it turns out it leads to starvation and horrific politically-motivated genocide (and a disaster of an economy).

So from my perspective, if a left-wing candidate is associated with CPUSA, or the Democratic Socialists, then I find that essentially equivalent to right-wing candidates being associated with the NSWPP, from a political perspective.

But, as has been pointed out, oh, eighty bajillion times now including by you, the two Nazis on the ballots got there despite Republican resistance in areas where the Republicans didn't run any opposition due to the districts being deep blue. They have not been endorsed by the Republican Party, and I believe have actually been condemned by them.

 

Ocasio-Cortez certainly hasn't been condemned by the DNC, although it sounds like they are writhing in agony over her victory. Yet, if her politics get mainstreamed (and that's a whole lot more likely than Nazis becoming mainstream), people will die in large numbers, in all likelihood.

Share this post


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

 

Pretty sure Harvard is a private university. 

 

Pretty sure we frown upon political discrimination, if we can even call this that.

 

Then again, if you wanna try winning this point you gotta accept the "it's a private X" for a whole host of things you didn't think through. Just asking for a friend but...you vote Goldwater?

Share this post


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

 

Pretty sure Harvard is a private university. 

 

 

Not sure what your response has to do with the lefts blatant, across the board attack on Free Speech. Frankly, the left wing pushing hate speech laws is a bigger threat to this country than anything Trump has done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Not sure what your response has to do with the lefts blatant, across the board attack on Free Speech. Frankly, the left wing pushing hate speech laws is a bigger threat to this country than anything Trump has done. 

 

Read the linked articles again.  One is a blog post by the lawyer of someone who claims they were asked by a school administrator why they followed Alex Jones.  Then there is another blog post repeating the lawyers blog post, and then an article repeating the story as well.  The other link is a CNN article that does not mention Alex Jones at all, it just notes that college admissions officers are examining prospects social media history.  So basically, we have one example of this supposed "political" censorship.  Although, its not censorship since Harvard is a private institution.  Just like a prospective employer might look at your social media presence to make sure they are not hiring a Nazi or a flat earther or whatever.  If you follow the link provided in the one post giving examples of other times when an applicant was turned down because of their social media history, the examples cited were not political, but rather because people were posting pretty gross and stupid stuff.  

 

"In the group, students sent each other memes and other images mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust, and the deaths of children, according to screenshots of the chat obtained by The Crimson. Some of the messages joked that abusing children was sexually arousing, while others had punchlines directed at specific ethnic or racial groups. One called the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child “piñata time.”

After discovering the existence and contents of the chat, Harvard administrators revoked admissions offers to at least ten participants in mid-April, according to several members of the group. University officials have previously said that Harvard’s decision to rescind a student’s offer is final."

 

  

Share this post


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

 

Read the linked articles again.  One is a blog post by the lawyer of someone who claims they were asked by a school administrator why they followed Alex Jones.  Then there is another blog post repeating the lawyers blog post, and then an article repeating the story as well.  The other link is a CNN article that does not mention Alex Jones at all, it just notes that college admissions officers are examining prospects social media history.  So basically, we have one example of this supposed "political" censorship.  Although, its not censorship since Harvard is a private institution.  Just like a prospective employer might look at your social media presence to make sure they are not hiring a Nazi or a flat earther or whatever.  If you follow the link provided in the one post giving examples of other times when an applicant was turned down because of their social media history, the examples cited were not political, but rather because people were posting pretty gross and stupid stuff.  

 

"In the group, students sent each other memes and other images mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust, and the deaths of children, according to screenshots of the chat obtained by The Crimson. Some of the messages joked that abusing children was sexually arousing, while others had punchlines directed at specific ethnic or racial groups. One called the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child “piñata time.”

After discovering the existence and contents of the chat, Harvard administrators revoked admissions offers to at least ten participants in mid-April, according to several members of the group. University officials have previously said that Harvard’s decision to rescind a student’s offer is final."

 

  

 

I hope you don't approve of private leftist corps acting like fascists, cause its not the government.   Anyway, I wasn't responding to any link or a particular post. I'm making the statement, I think I've been making for years, that leftist in this country no longer value free speech. 

 

And yeah, I know the 1st Amendment, only protects us from Government action, and even though Don posted about how much money they take, that's not even the point. The point is, Freedom of Speech is a plain old good idea, a good idea for everyone.  I am very suspicious of anyone who wants to restrict free speech. I find it disgusting Harvard is doing something like this, but its par for the course, whats shocking is anyone is defending them with "well they are a private" line of BS.  

 

You act like this is the first time this has come up, but just go back and read the descents on the last few Freedom of Speech cases that went through the supreme court. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

I hope you don't approve of private leftist corps acting like fascists, cause its not the government.   Anyway, I wasn't responding to any link or a particular post. I'm making the statement, I think I've been making for years, that leftist in this country no longer value free speech. 

 

And yeah, I know the 1st Amendment, only protects us from Government action, and even though Don posted about how much money they take, that's not even the point. The point is, Freedom of Speech is a plain old good idea, a good idea for everyone.  I am very suspicious of anyone who wants to restrict free speech. I find it disgusting Harvard is doing something like this, but its par for the course, whats shocking is anyone is defending them with "well they are a private" line of BS.  

 

You act like this is the first time this has come up, but just go back and read the descents on the last few Freedom of Speech cases that went through the supreme court. 

 

 

 

Be that as i may, I like evidence.  All that was in those articles were the claims of one lawyer.  And yes, I like freedom of speech just fine.  I also think that Universities have gotten a bit silly in how much they coddle students these days.  That said, it's fairly low on the list of my current concerns regarding the health of the nation.

Share this post


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

 

Be that as i may, I like evidence.  All that was in those articles were the claims of one lawyer.  And yes, I like freedom of speech just fine.  I also think that Universities have gotten a bit silly in how much they coddle students these days.  That said, it's fairly low on the list of my current concerns regarding the health of the nation.

 

 

Yes, because the Trump admin, who has a record-breaking economy going, with record-breaking low unemployment, and a higher GDP than Obama ever achieved, and who has our NATO allies finally taking defense seriously and starting to pay their fair share, and who has gotten the remains of lost soldiers from North Korea, and who got a tax cut through that helped me and everyone I know, and appointed a great judge,  is much more concerning than one party going insane, and throwing away its long-held values to try and resist Trump, while ignoring all the good he has done. 

 

P.S. SPACEFORCE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interest of bi-partisanship, here's some red-meat for the Democrats/Socialists.

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just strapped on her dildo and verbally ass-raped Ben Shapiro on Twitter today.

 

 

 

Apparently Pajama Boy Shapiro and his minions at DailyWire have been trolling Ocasio-Cortez' social media accounts challenging her to a debate in exchange for $10,000 (donated to "charity"). Because it's not like Ocasio-Cortez is involved in a political campaign to get elected and actually has an opponent in the race to debate. But she has to debate Ben Shapiro for some reason who doesn't even live in her Congressional District and is from California. And in taking him down a peg, she has made Shapiro look like a cheap pervert.

 

And now the gang at DailyWire is busy clutching their pearls and collapsing on their collective feinting couches because their fearless leader got beat up by a girl, claiming that Ocasio-Cortez has "slandered" Shapiro.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/34321/twitter-explodes-after-ocasio-cortez-attacks-ryan-saavedra

 

"Twitter exploded on Thursday after democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slandered Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro in response to the debate offer he extended to her earlier in the week, leading many prominent accounts to slam the 28-year-old bartender turned politician."

 

And it's stupid shit like this that annoys me with modern politics, where even the GOP intelligentsia tries to score political points by seeing who can get offended the hardest after their cheap political stunt fails.

 

 

 

God Shapiro is such a pussy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Donward said:

In the interest of bi-partisanship, here's some red-meat for the Democrats/Socialists.

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just strapped on her dildo and verbally ass-raped Ben Shapiro on Twitter today.

 

 

 

Apparently Pajama Boy Shapiro and his minions at DailyWire have been trolling Ocasio-Cortez' social media accounts challenging her to a debate in exchange for $10,000 (donated to "charity"). Because it's not like Ocasio-Cortez is involved in a political campaign to get elected and actually has an opponent in the race to debate. But she has to debate Ben Shapiro for some reason who doesn't even live in her Congressional District and is from California. And in taking him down a peg, she has made Shapiro look like a cheap pervert.

 

And now the gang at DailyWire is busy clutching their pearls and collapsing on their collective feinting couches because their fearless leader got beat up by a girl, claiming that Ocasio-Cortez has "slandered" Shapiro.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/34321/twitter-explodes-after-ocasio-cortez-attacks-ryan-saavedra

 

"Twitter exploded on Thursday after democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slandered Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro in response to the debate offer he extended to her earlier in the week, leading many prominent accounts to slam the 28-year-old bartender turned politician."

 

And it's stupid shit like this that annoys me with modern politics, where even the GOP intelligentsia tries to score political points by seeing who can get offended the hardest after their cheap political stunt fails.

 

 

 

God Shapiro is such a pussy.

 

It's no wonder why the country elected a notorious trash talker who isn't afraid to talk shit.

 

I wouldn't care which political alignment you are.  Ouch. That was a bitchslap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Shapiro is such an insufferable little weasel.

 

How the fuck do you get BTFO by the clueless socialist? Also "GOP Intelligentsia" are fucking hacks and shills. Absolutely useless and unaware talking heads like Bill Kristol need to just peacefully sunset themselves into a self-exile. 

 

Edit:

Aaaand ofc I go onto twitter and one of the random youtubers I enjoy had a better come back than Benji:

"Let me get this straight. You are a politician; who doesn't want to debate politics.

Retard."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

is much more concerning than one party going insane, and throwing away its long-held values to try and resist Trump, while ignoring all the good he has done. 

 

 

 

Yes, I to think it's a shame the Republican party threw away what remained of its values and dignity.  Oh wait,  you were talking about the Democrats?

 

anyhow, enough snark.


You say the economy is doing great.  Yes, for corporations, who got the lions share of the tax cut.  Wages for working people are stagnant, and the average US worker has nothing in savings.  This is not a new trend, but Trump's "great" economy has done nothing to reverse this trend.  And of course, while the corporate tax cuts are permanent, the ones for individuals end in ten years.  I figure that's about when they will use the excuse that there is a huge hole in the federal budget (due to the Bush Jr and Trump tax cuts) to start seriously cutting entitlements.  So, kiss your social security and medicaid goodbye by the time any of us need it.

 

As to NATO, please stop using Trumps deliberately misleading rhetoric.  No one "pays" anything.  The issue is whether or not member states are "spending" enough on defense, not "paying" money to anyone.  The 2% goal is not something Trump created, it actually is a long standing goal established by previous administrations.  Trump's main "accomplishment" regarding NATO has been to cause our allies to have serious doubts as to the US willingness to actually Article 5 of the NATO treaty.  

 

On other foreign policy issues, he tore up the Iran deal, then said he would be willing to talk to the Iranians.  Predictably, the Iranians were not in any hurry to talk to a leader who just arbitrarily withdrew from a treaty signed only a few years ago.  By reimposing sanctions on Iran, Trump has created another dilemma  regarding European relations, who have not disavowed the Iran deal. 

 

So far, negotiations with North Korea have gotten the return of US soldier remains, but as far as actual progress on the dismantling of NK's nuclear capability, recent reports claim that NK research and development is continuing.  Actually, Mike Pompeo stated it himself last month.  As to US - Russian relations, Trump went to meet with Putin in Helsinki, and the results were, shall we say, a little odd...

 

One the international economic front, he seems to think tariffs are the magic bullet.  Frankly, it's still probably too soon to tell exactly what impact these tariffs will have, although Trump already has had to bribe US farmers with $12 billion dollars to make up for their tariff related losses.  If we are lucky, prices on consumer goods will not go up too dramatically as this trade war escalates.

 

As to his skill as an executive leader, the Trump white house has been an absolute mess.  Never before have we seen an administration with such a quick turnover of high ranking positions.  Most of his cabinet heads seemed to have been picked based on their antipathy for the department they are supposed to head.  His first EPA choice, Scott Pruitt, ended up in over a dozen ethics investigations.  Zinke, the head of interior, has had a few ethical issues of his own.  Betsy Devos, sec of Ed, went in front of congress and delivered one of the most embarrassing performances by a cabinet head ever.  Tom Price, of Health and Human services had to resign over misuse of department money for travel.  Ben Carson seems to like very expensive office furniture.  

 

As far as Trump's primary campaign promises, most are still unfulfilled. 

 

The Wall?  Congress has not been able to come up with a new immigration bill, let alone funding for the wall.  The idea that Mexico will pay for the wall seems to have been quietly abandoned.  The only accomplishment by Trump on immigration so far has been to put children in cages. 

 

His other big promise, to repeal and replace Obamacare with something better has not materialized either.  He's managed to cripple the AHCA to a certain extent, but the law still stands, and it is doubtful congress will take up the issue of repeal any time soon. 

 

And then there is the promise to "drain the swamp", whatever that means exactly.  If it means getting rid of corruption, perhaps he should have started with his own campaign?  Currently, we have Trump's former campaign manager on trail, the star witness being Trump's former deputy campaign manager.  Both are accused of serious financial crimes. His commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has been accused of grifting $120 million dollars.  His son and son in law are prime targets for the Mueller probe, and Trump himself has admitted that the two willing attended a meeting during the campaign with the goal of securing damaging information about Trump's opponent from agents of a foreign government.  Meanwhile, a different legal case is proceeding regarding Trump's potential violations of the emoluments clause.  Given that Trump refused to disclose his tax returns to the American public, or to effectively distance himself from his business empire while president, the notion that he is financially benefiting from his elected office is not all that far-fetched. 

 

Meanwhile, Trump's approval ratings have stayed fairly flat, hovering in the 40-45 % range.  The republican establishment is scared as hell of November, knowing that Trump has alienated all but his base.  Just look at all the high profile republicans who decided to retire to "spend more time with their families."  Most of what Trump has accomplished so far has been done the same way his predecessor did it, with executive orders.  And as we have seen, executive orders are not nearly as long lasting or as durable as actual laws.  If Trump loses the congress in November, you can be guaranteed that the next two years of his presidency will be even less productive. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Like, as history people, we can all agree that Communism and National Socialism are both failed ideologies. They aren't failed because they are distasteful, they are distasteful because they are failed.

The Nazis were early political standard bearers for scientific racism and eugenics. At the time, it wasn't known what negative effects this would have - and it turns out it leads to horrific racially-motivated genocide (and a shitty economy). 

 

The Communists bore the standard of aggressive forced post-capitalist economic theory. At the time, it wasn't known what negative effects this would have - and it turns out it leads to starvation and horrific politically-motivated genocide (and a disaster of an economy).

So from my perspective, if a left-wing candidate is associated with CPUSA, or the Democratic Socialists, then I find that essentially equivalent to right-wing candidates being associated with the NSWPP, from a political perspective.

But, as has been pointed out, oh, eighty bajillion times now including by you, the two Nazis on the ballots got there despite Republican resistance in areas where the Republicans didn't run any opposition due to the districts being deep blue. They have not been endorsed by the Republican Party, and I believe have actually been condemned by them.

 

Ocasio-Cortez certainly hasn't been condemned by the DNC, although it sounds like they are writhing in agony over her victory. Yet, if her politics get mainstreamed (and that's a whole lot more likely than Nazis becoming mainstream), people will die in large numbers, in all likelihood.

 

Again, you keep using Communism and Socialism interchangeably.  I looked at the platform for Ocasio-Cortez, most of it is pretty much a continuation of New Deal style policy.  I saw nothing about the liquidation of Kulaks, imposition of single party rule, or the collectivization of the means of production.  And please, don't assume that I support her entire platform.  Some of it sounds wildly impractical from a financial standpoint.  That said, I don't think she is the second coming of Stalin, nor is it fair to compare her to some of the extreme right nutjobs that have surfaced on the Republican ticket in non-competitive districts.  And yes, the Democratic establishment is not all that happy with her.  For that fact alone, I am sort of happy she is around.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

I bet Democrats would care more about unborn babies if they were allowed to register them as voters prior to exiting the womb. 

 

That would perhaps be the weirdest canvassing job ever.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • 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. 
       
       
    • By Khand-e
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35333647
       
      Like I said a couple days ago actually, I said I thought it was very likely that Ma Ying-Jeou would lose the next election as he and his administration are very unpopular, and I guess it turned out to be true, also, aside from being the first female president, She's also the second candidate to win under the Democratic Progressive Party as opposed to the more traditonal Kuomintang which has held it for 5 (arguably 6) terms. and her party has also won a majority in the legislative Yuan, which is actually a pretty significant swing.
    • By Jeeps_Guns_Tanks
      I thought it was disgraceful we had a thread on Russian race cars, and other cars, but not one on American muscle cars and race cars, IE the best cars. 
       
      Over the weekend I'll put a little write up on the GTO and why it kicked off the musclecar, and why the Mustang was an overrated econo box for girls until the 67 model, more akin to a nova then a truly great car like a Pontiac GTO. 
       
      UPDATE:
      My thoughts on why the muscle car era was teh awesome.
       
      The reason 64 to 73 was one of the most interesting era for American cars, is they went a little nuts on how much power they started putting into cars, and all the GM brands for the most part still had their own engine types.
       
      The birth of the muscle car era started in 1964 when John Delorean, Jim Wangers and Pete Estes snuck the GTO option on the 64 mid-size Pontiac Tempest/Lemans platform that was based on GM A-Body platform. There were a few reasons it had to be snuck in, all mainly the fault of GM head executives being stodge old fogies. They had come up with two policies that caused boring cars. The first was their decision to pull out of any GM sponsored racing and the ban on developing performance parts. They also had a ban on putting motors bigger than 330 cubic inches in mid-size cars.
      The sad thing is GM had a thriving race scene and a set of dealers and race teams using their products. Pontiac and Chevrolet in particular had really bumped up their market share through their winning race teams. They were doing crazy stuff like Swiss cheesing frames, producing aluminum front ends (hoods, fenders, bumpers), and producing multi carb manifolds and there’s more I’m sure I’m forgetting. Then BAM, in the span of weeks GM killed it all off in 63.
        
      The heart of GTO option on the Lemans was the 389 cubic inch V8 used in Pontiac full size cars. The V8 was rated a 325 horsepower. The biggest V8 the car came with normally was the 326. The GTO option also included the choice of a close ratio four speed Muncie transmission, and heavy duty suspension and brakes. It could also include Pontiacs Safe-T-track limited slip differential with gear ratio choices of 3.23, 3.55, 3.90, 4.10, and if I recall right, 4.56.  The name was strait up ripped off from Ferrari, by Delorean. You could also order the package with triple carburetors, also known as tri-power, and it upped the engines horsepower to 335.
       
       
      GM and Pontiac found out about it, but Wangers had gone out and showed the car to some big dealers in the Detroit area and they already had big orders so GM corporate, and Pontiac let it be produced, the general manager told Delorean he would have the last laugh because there was no way they could even sell the 5000 that had been authorized, and Pontiac would have to eat the loss on inventory they couldn't sell, and it would be his ass. It sold more than 32,000 units, as a really un advertised option, so Delorean and Estes won the day, and the ban on big engines in mid size cars was lifted, and the GTO became its own model, still based on the Lemans/tempest platform,  but with no small engine choices.
       
      The other GM brands caught up with their own special models in 1965, Chevrolet with the SS 396 Chevelle, Oldsmobile with the 442, and Buick with the GS. GM still put a size restriction on motors and their A-Body mid-size models, but it was now 400 cubic inches, and all the brands had motors that could be grown well past this and already had been and were used in the full-size car lines.  Even this restriction would be pulled in 1970 because other major brands were stuffing huge motors in mid and even the newer smaller cars and GM was losing out.
       
      Ford and Chrysler and even AMC didn't just sit back and watch GM reap the reward, Ford had come out with their ‘Pony’ car the Mustang, in 1964, and it was also a huge success, but it was no performance car, even with the top of the line V8 option, a GTO would eat it alive, handing and acceleration wise.  Ford also had mid-size cars with large V8 options, but none that had been packaged like the GTO and they were light on good large V8s in the early 60s, plus their mid-size cars were ugly as hell.  The Mustang would grow into its own later in the 60s, in particular, when Carol Shelby started playing with them. They never had a great mid-size muscle car that wasn't ugly though.
       
      Chrysler had cars that could be considered muscle cars, but before 68 they were all so ugly, no one but weirdos drove them. They did have some very powerful engine combos, and they really hit the scene hard with the introduction of the cheap as hell but big engine powered Plymouth Road-Runner in 1968, you could buy a very fast Road-Runner for a lot less than you could even a base model GTO.  For a classier Chrysler they had their Plymouth GTX line, and Dodge had their beautiful Charger. The Cuda got an update in 1970, so it wasn’t really really ugly anymore, and the same platform was used to give Dodge the Challenger.  These cars fit more into the pony car scheme though. The main point is Chrysler produced ugly cars until 1968.
       
      GM would jump into the pony car scene in 1967 with the introduction of the first gen F-body. Chevrolet got the Camaro, and Pontiac got the Firebird. These cars were introduced with engine options up to 400 cubic inches, though, when they got a 396, or 400, they were slightly detuned so the mid-size cars still had an ‘advantage’, there was just a little tab that restricted the secondaries on the quadrajet carb.
       
      The whole thing came crashing down and by 1973, the muscle car was all but dead, and the US car industry was in a slump it would not recover from until the late 80s, also when the muscle car returned in a weird way with the Buick Gran National. While it lasted the muscle-car era produced some iconic cars, and some very rare but interesting ones. Most of them looked pretty damn cool though, and by now, they are very rare to see as daily driven cars. They exist; I pass a 68 SS Camaro all the time. Now even a base model muscle car or pony car that's rusted all to hell can be more then 8 to 10 grand, and you will spend triple that making it into a nice car.
       
      1970 was probably the peak year, and some very powerful cars came out that year and that year only. Chevrolet offered the SS Chevelle with the LS6 454, pumping out 450 HP. Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac all had very high horsepower 455 cubic inch V8s in the GSX, 442, and GTO models. Government safety restrictions, smog restrictions that required a lot of crap to be added to the engines, and high insurance prices all worked to kill these cars, and the final straw was the gas crisis.  The US Auto industry was a barren waste land unless you liked trucks, until about 1986.
       
      The cars never lost popularity though, but their worth has fluctuated a lot. You could buy just about anything in the late 70s and early 80s, and you could gate rare stuff a low prices, but by the late 80s the collectors had started getting into muscle cars and the prices went crazy. No, unless you want to spend a lot of money, you’re not going to be driving around a classic car from that era. On the upside, the aftermarket parts scene has gotten so extensive, you can build a 1968 Camaro, or 1970 Chevelle almost from scratch, since the body shell and just about all the body panels are being produced. You’re looking at about 14 grand just for the body shell of a 1970 Chevelle, from there you looking at a huge chunk of change to build it all the way, but it could be done. I suspect they are used to put a very rare, but totaled cars back into shape.
       
      It’s nice to be helping with the restoration of one of these cars, without being tied to the cost. I can have fun taking it apart, and putting it back together without worrying about how I was going to fund it. I also have more tools for working on cars than my father in law, and know more about GM cars, so I’m appreciated, and that’s nice. I just with the owner was willing to upgrade the thing a little, you can really go a long way to making an old muscle car handle and stop well, and be more reliable and safe with upgrades not much more than rebuilding everything dead stock, and putting upgraded suspension on a otherwise numbers matching car really doesn't hurt the value, especially if you put all the stock shit in boxes and save it. I’m not paying for it though so it is of course his call, and putting it back together stock is easier in most cases. I really wish it was a 68 GTO because, man I still know those cars, and every time we run into some stupid Chevy thing, I’m like, man, Pontiacs are so  much better, and I get dirty looks.  BUT THEY ARE!!!
       
      Anyway, I said I would write something up, and there it is. 
       
       
       
      Hopefully we have a few guys in here who dig on American Iron and will post about the cars they loved, and yes, I mean in that way,

×