Though I may not look it, I'm really untelligent.
Valor Emblem
TRPG made with Sim RPGMaker95




♫ In the name of love ♫

e : Ninja'd

President Trump

So, what is the real aim of the ban?
I heard a good analysis on this.
Occasionally, when a troubled regime sees a major issue coming down the pipe, they'll try to cover it up with a more major issue. International events are good for this because they command the attention of the world, not just the governed population. One recent example is China's aggressive territorial behavior in the South China Sea. A far more extreme example is Hitler invading Poland because the Nazi Economy's substantial debts were coming due.

What the White House administration may have been trying to cover up is the growing split in the Republican party. For the last decade or so, the Republicans have comfortably gotten away with rhetoric, saying how they'll destroy this or that social program, hold government spending in check, go after the Muslims, et al. Now that they're actually in power and pretty much have carte blanche, some of them are realizing "Oh my god. If we actually go through with our promises, we'll be attacking our own electorate!" Smarter and cooler heads are suggesting they tone it down a little, but the party is still filled with Tea Party fanatics determined to burn down the house.
Obamacare is particularly contentious because it's first on the chopping block and they still have no replacement, despite their promise to swap out the old with the new "essentially simultaneously." They're catching on that, if they go ahead and demolish it, Trumpcare™ will be an albatross around their necks for generations to come.

So rather than letting it come to light that, two weeks after inauguration the Republicans are already showing signs of dissent and internal strife, the White House decided to go ahead with this rushed, hackneyed executive order that pissed off the entire world and is guaranteed to be challenged and defeated in court.

As an aside, it's another example of Trump's decisionism. He wants to be able to rule by decree, not by legal constitutional government. Maybe he and his confidants believe that if they saturate the system with dictatorial edicts, some of them will start to slide.

President Trump

Sarah Silverman is a celebrity with far-reaching influence
:image macros are no-nos:

You're the one who keeps coming here with bones to pick, man. Go read the past few pages since you left. Despite some heated discussion, it's been keeping civil.

President Trump

Man this is getting silly. Just because Trump won doesn't mean you can throw together Antifa riots, beat people up, set fires to college campuses, call everyone you don't like a Nazi, and have celebrities quite literally call for the military overthrow of the government. I am morbidly curious as to how these things will be justified...

It's called the Black Bloc, and it's been around a lot longer than Trump's been in office. As versed in politics as you are, you should know that.
And who cares what Sarah Silverman says?

Also, I thought you were out.

[RMMV] [RMVX ACE] The official Slip into Ruby/Jump into Javascript topic of awesomeness and long title

Bookmarked for my next project. Great compilation, Trihan.
And thanks to whoever added to the Event Bar for awareness.

Not Sure if anyone's noticed...

FYI bulma, scores generally aren't given to Demos. The expectation is that issues brought up during the development stage will be ironed out by the time the final product is released.

President Trump

I wasn't talking about killing people, just about preventing people from getting pregnant. China's one child rule is an example of this precise thing put into action, and it's worked well for them.

Two things.
1) Preventing people from getting pregnant is a form of discrimination, no matter how you slice it. And if a woman does get pregnant when she's not allowed to, what then? Fine her? Arrest her? ...force her to abort it?
You've probably noticed that most Western countries have a big demographics problem. There aren't quite as many young as there are old, and a lot of social programs are at risk of being underfunded because of it. This is all because we're reasonably well off, have opportunities, and our women are educated and allowed to be more than homemakers and breeding mares. Families get smaller in these circumstances, and the population naturally shrinks.
So the humane solution to a "human overpopulation" problem, if it even existed, is to elevate everybody's standard of living.

2) China's one-child policy is a catastrophe whose seeds have yet to bear fruit. Not only is it disproportionately gaping compared to anybody in the Western world, but Chinese hypernationalism will thwart the dampening effects of immigration.
Right now, the oldest person born under the one-child policy is 38, meaning the previous generation is still of working age, so there's still some time. But when they start retiring and the following generation is less than half their size (have to account for deaths along the way), China is going to implode.

President Trump

Good grief, what makes you so sure that current-gen robots are going to be the be-all and end-all? You act as if we're 25-50 years away from turning the entirety of the human race into loafers and failed musicians.

The robotization of everything would take at least a generation to roll out in a hypothetically perfect scenario, which we don't live in. Ergo, Robotics is probably the next big labor field. If we want to get ourselves to the point where a mechanical arm hands us coffee through a Drive-Thru window, we'll need at least that much. And when Space Travel is viable, people will begin hopping into space ships and checking out new real estate, so there'll be that too.
I'm just using my imagination but there's little else to use. After all, nobody saw Computer Technology absorbing the labor power lost to computerization.

President Trump

This whole paragraph is notable for being practically meaningless (as in, it could mean just about anything) without any specific issues such logic might address.

I don't know what's so ambiguous about it. I basically said that if humans don't achieve the capability of leaving earth for good, we're as doomed as the polar bears and the spotted owls.
So crying and raising a stink over a few habitats spoiled in the name of progress is probably the wrong way to go.

@All the utopian (and not-so-utopian) replies about automation: I think that you're buying into the hype, and the whole automation thing most closely resembles the promises of "Nuclear Dawn" in the 1960's, before it turned out any plant safer than Three Mile Island and Chernobyl ones would cost magnitudes more than what these dreamers anticipated, and there isn't enough commercially viable uranium to run a lot of nuclear plants for a long time regardless. Here, you still have the same resource consideration: no-one seems willing to calculate just how much gold and rare earth metals (they're called that way for a reason) you would need to supply, to make this "robots replace all workers" come true. Even if you manage to find enough commercially available supplies to do so once (doubtful), the commercially available supplies of these minerals are likely to run dry in a decade or two later at most, and then you'll be back at square one.

What? This argument again?
The ancient Greeks worried that shipbuilding would destroy all the forests. In the 19th century, pessimists worried that coal would run out and the industrial revolution would come crashing down.
In 2017, we have a shortage of neither trees nor coal. Resource dependency on them has declined to such a point that now we have huge surpluses of each (trees are debatable since it's subjective individually). 20 years from now, I suspect Uranium will become an object of total revulsion.
Sorry, but the idea that we shouldn't use a resource because we might run out of it is silly.

As an aside, taxing robots because they'll steal jobs is asinine. Any politician who proposes that should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

Your belief that automation won't adversely affect humans and jobs is too Utopian. This time it's different.

Look guys.
At the start of the last century, manufacturing was still very manual. A machine had people at the infeed, the outfeed, in-between for operation, delivering raw material to the machine, taking finished goods away, and repeat for each stage of the entire process (there are usually many, many stages in the production of anything). A lot of those jobs started disappearing on account of computerization.
But the catch is, a brand new economic sector opened up because of Computerization, in the Computer sector, and nobody saw it coming either.

President Trump

You know, this is one of the bad things about public education: government dictates what is taught.

Actually, I think government should be the only one who dictates what is taught, indirectly dictated by the population at large. The last thing we want is one private school acting like Corfaisus' boot camp and another being a glorified day care. Standards will cease to exist, and even if government tries to set a floor like you suggest, you'll still end up with a stratified education system where if you're not a graduate from one of the top tier schools, you need not apply. That's a path to backwardization.
It's easy to scoff at the idea of government standards being directed by the electors, especially in the face of the last twenty years of systemic deterioration, but keep in mind that right now, the squeaky wheels are getting the grease. I think the recent Women's March is a sign of the times, and we'll see a greater participation at large going forward.

I have never heard of that fuckhead. I just know we're destroying everything else to make room for ourselves.

You may not have heard of him, but he's already done a number on you. The root cause of widespread pessimism in the western world comes from the idea that "Humans are the problem", which itself stems from his ideologies being carried forward to the present day.
Now when you say "destroying everything else to make room for ourselves", what exactly is the fate of everything else? That's easy. They're doomed. Sooner or later, the entire planet and everything on it will be eradicated by a meteor, a solar flare, or if it makes it that far, our own sun's supernova. The only species with a chance of prolonging it's existence is humanity.
That's not to say "fuck everything else, we're more important", but you have to accept that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

So, is a coup d'etat happening right now in the USA? It seems like EO after EO is getting signed and put into immediate effect (even though they break laws and/or violate the Constitution)

He's practicing Decisionism. It basically says that laws are valid and indisputable as long as they come from the proper authority. Obviously in Trump and America's case, it violates the entire system of government, but that's the idea. It's a philosophy that tries to justify overruling the legal constitutional government in favor of dictatorship, or at least centralism.

Also, I think I mentioned in another thread that if Trump wins, we won't see fair elections in 2020.