We at least agree on this setting a bad precedent Hellfish!!!!!!! I think that even if he does lose in the courts, he can say that 'he tried' to his supporters and that he did his best, but DEMOCRATS stopped him.
I think it sets an amazing precedent actually! A few billion dollars now for the ability to side step congress in the future at will, holy fuck it's going to be so awesome. Just think for one second what President Warren or President Sanders could do with this power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or in a few years President AOC... Unfortunately there is an almost 0% chance this works. I'm perfectly fine with having the Supreme Court decide the issue of whether the border is or is not a national crisis. There seems to be a difference of opinion on the issue, doesn't there? |
|
|
|
Again, so what? The students are not required to go to that college. They have freedom of choice.
Yeah exactly. I mean who cares about poors not being able to chose their college adequatly to their skills and potential but adequatly to their geographical location because they're unable to pay a rent? Let the poor go to the colleges close to their area. Which will be the worst possible colleges as they're colleges close to poor areas. So poors will go to shit college and rich to the best college. It seems like a pretty fair deal to me. They have "freedom of choice". No, that's not what is happening. In the USA west coast some areas are way overpriced, largely because of pricing being bid up from foreign investors. Areas of and around Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Francisco. There are others, of course. But there are many reasonably priced and low priced areas, great places to live, with low crime rates. Basically it's ONLY a few select areas that have the problem of the title of this thread. It might be argued that someone in CA going to Oklahoma for college would be a victim because he would have to pay higher out of state tuition. But there are many areas in CA that are reasonably priced. It's a big state. |
|
|
|
Well its a matter of knowing the details of the situation. There isn't a lack of availability of real estate or rental housing on the market. There is plenty of supply out there. The homeless students aren't unable to find housing near their campus. They are unable to AFFORD housing.
Again, so what? The students are not required to go to that college. They have freedom of choice. REVISION. There could be circumstances where a student was required to go to some place that he was in fact unable to afford. Sometimes there is a four year program where for six months or even two years, the student is required to go to XYZ. Ocean biology is one example I know of. But there could be other cases where due to circumstances beyond his control, a student found himself in difficult circumstances. Similar cases occur with graduate education, although there there are more commonly stipends or jobs which pay significant fraction s of the cost, unlike in undergraduate. Of course that happens to all of us. One way or another. |
|
|
|
Universal Basic Income will be needed very soon, the rise of automation is removing the need for human labor in a lot of sectors.
Wealth Inequality is reaching levels that haven't been seen before, when this gets out of hand society will collapse and everyone loses. Poor people would rather flip the game board over and start all over at this point.
Younger generation can't afford houses, cars, etc. The boomer generation had it nice but they pulled the ladder up behind them....
Seems to me you are conflagration unrelated issues, UBI and economic conditions. Then you attempt to use the economic conditions as cause for a necessary effect, the UBI. But why, if prosperity is sufficient as described, should GOVERNMENT EXPAND? |
|
|
|
...
Japanese pods could work in place of dorm style housing but thats not the issue. The issue isn't what to build or how much to build. The issue is how to fund it, and how to provide it to the students.
.....
Who says the issue is how or if the government does yet one more thing for one subgroup of society? You. Only you. Frankly I don't see the problem. The students can go to college somewhere else. Let colleges close that are not competitive, and many of them are not. |
|
|
|
If there was an election today. He would crush it.
He would crush it today, and he's gonna crush it in 2020. There isn't a single Democrat on the scene that has the American people's interests listed as a priority. Not one. All they care about is stopping Trump. Their policies aren't even well thought out, the only prerequisite to their policies is that they oppose Trump's. Democrats care more about damaging the image of Republican's than they do about solving problems that plague Americans. I didn't vote for Trump in '16, I thought he was just another bag of hot air. I will most certainly vote for him 2020, and his successor in 2024! Well that's a great vote of confidence. But we don't know who will come next. It may be someone you despise. Trump cannot nominate his successor in the same way that he can go to the Federalist Society and get a list of judges to nominate. There's maybe one reason for optimism. There is a saying that "first rate men hire first rate men, and second rate men hire third rate men." Trump has a lifetime of experience selecting people for high level positions. I would go with his selection, all things considered. |
|
|
|
Marx was a functionally retarded, hypocritical, incompetent, boiled-assed, leech of a man with zero principles.
You definitely haven't read Marx. Cause Das Kapital is one hell of an incredible book. As smart and interesting as it's badly written. Very similar to Orwell without any writing ability ^^ Back to the students' problems. How about Japanese style Pods? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhBiw9pgUo |
|
|
|
..... the west fools its own population with their central banks, and only works by fooling the population, the average citizens are supposed to live in a dream world, where they feel big and strong, but they are in the end just those low net worth individuals.
that are supposed to sell their time, while the capitalists print money and buy their time and live in wealth and security. the proletarians live in unsecurity.
Asserting this on a Bitcoin Forum is talking to an audience that's totally familiar with central banks and the problems of fiat. |
|
|
|
....In spite of having the most negative mainstream media coverage, ever in history, for any sitting President, Donald Trump's approval rating has hit a staggering 52%.
This once again puts him above President Obama, at the exact same time of his Presidency and the highest in years for any President.
If there was an election today. He would crush it.
They fear him because he actually does what he says. Quite interesting, actually. Whatever your personal feelings about Trump, you have got to admit that he's caused a number of aspects of the reality of media and politics to become starkly clear, that were not at all previously clear. And which would have remained obscure with any other candidate. |
|
|
|
Congress should vote on AOCs version of the GND immediately so voters can see who supports this nonsense.
Since the bill proposes to immediately cut deep into many sectors of the economy, what it actually represents is giving some group of government Overlords total control over those portions of the economy. That's directly a totalitarian takeover. Voting is probably usually based on the opportunities for graft. That's huge in this scheme but it's also huge as things are unchanged. After such a bill is passed, what has occurred is a transfer of power. The original purported "green goals" are forgotten or just given lip service. All it was ever about was power. |
|
|
|
.....
If Pecker is smart enough to understand this, the question obviously remains why was Mr. Pecker willing to risk all of this to shut Bezo's up?
So what you need is a fake story that's good enough? |
|
|
|
That all may change with thorium reactors.
And then there is the promise of fusion.
And then there are those who would create a new dark age.
This is completely different. It's not because you want out of nuclear energy that you want out of nuclear RESEARCH. Thorium aren't incredible, they're not a long term solution, but they're definitely an amazing innovation greatly enhancing the possibilities of old reactors. Especially in the waste disposal part ^^ Fusion would change everything. It's like discovering petrol again. Fusion would mean no need for negative growth, no need to chose between green and consumation, no wars for at least 50 years. Fusion is a singularity. It would basically mean free (or nearly free) energy without any pollution for all humanity. I'm against nuclear energy but I'm all for funding fusion research as much as we can ^^ So if we can survive the Potus singularity, the Green abyss, the AI singularity, then we have a home run with the fusion singularity? |
|
|
|
Check back with us in 3 weeks Captain Victory. Curious to really see if this ages well. I do personally think, even though I support President Trump, that it looks like he lost this battle. Unknown on the war yet though!!!!! Captain Victory checking in!!!!!!!!!!!! ..... LOL the dems literally can't loose this one, thanks pussy grabber, you really are the best deal maker the dems ever had! At the end of the day, there will be a wall. |
|
|
|
... The green new deal has a timeframe of 10-12 years. This time frame cannot possibly include nuclear because it takes decades not years to get new nuclear power plants online. We simply don't have the infrastructure in place to fast track nuclear power.
That all may change with thorium reactors. And then there is the promise of fusion. And then there are those who would create a new dark age. |
|
|
|
Being a complexe science doesn't mean there is nothing seen as certain. The existance of climate change is completely certain and there is no debate on this. The fact that it's human made at least in parts is also certain and not debatable.
The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.
I agree with all of the above. I still don't accept that anthropogenic warming is a significant problem, which is consistent within the range of possibility with what you say above. Consider the following. Suppose the West Antarctica Peninsula is structurally weak, and could break off, resulting in sea levels rising. Suppose further that this is argued to be the result of recent AGW. Should people then believe their leaders when they are told that only harsh taxes will solve the problem? When the politicians actually stand up and say they will roll the oceans back? This planet is a big place with lots of surprises. We could have that peninsula fall off, we could have a super volcano erupt in Yellowstone, the West Coast of the USA could have the big earthquake, an asteroid could hit.... |
|
|
|
They routinely do this, then when you contradict them they try to say you are anti-science. In fact they are anti-science 100%.
Or maybe I just made a bad assumption of what he wanted to say, corrected myself and apologized when he explained his thoughts with more details? You know it's not only people like you and TECSHARE here, some people are actually able to say "oh ok I misunderstood you I was wrong"... I wasn't referring to you with the "They" in that statement. And yes it is extremely easy to misunderstand with internet conversations. But in general the mark of a scientific comment is measured preciseness, an attempt to say no more or no less than what is true. By that standard we can note both climate alarmist and "denier" comments that fall short of the scientific standard. However they may fit within a political framework. A lot of people are truly sick and tired of being lectured to about how they should reduce co2 emissions by fatcats flying around in big jets. |
|
|
|
No there is not... I mean find anything supporting this claim will be challenge because the ONLY ongoing debate among scientists is the extent of the climate change. That's all.
Right, that's what I was referring to. Some scientists say the extent to which anthropogenic warming is a danger is negligible. They have a sound basis to make this claim, and they are climate scientists too. Saying "no there is not" is just the sort of lack of nuanced reasoning that produces such a polarised debate about global warming, which doesn't reflect the science itself, which is amongst the most complex (and hence nuanced) scientific disciplines there is. If you present your arguments in this topic like that, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? What happens is that someone like myself, who has read the IPCC reports and has access to the literature, immediately sees the lies propagated by alarmists who claim "Climate scientists SAY...." They routinely do this, then when you contradict them they try to say you are anti-science. In fact they are anti-science 100%. |
|
|
|
.....
Scientists have been very wrong about many many trends and phenomena in the past. They are not infallible to making mistakes, otherwise there would be little need for the peer review system.
And there is an ongoing debate amongst climate scientists. The only people who push the narrative that the debate is over are the corporate media and the corporate-bought politicians. Why would anyone trust what they say?
I have a great deal of sympathy for the CO2 alarmists. Their heart is in the right place, being careful with the balance of nature is very important (human wisdom has been cognizant of this for thousands of years). But the facts don't support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Sorry, but the facts matter.
Since the 1980s, climate alarmist have been pushing a ten to fifteen year ultimatum. They don't stop, they just slide the Doom Year forward. But the Earth has done just fine. |
|
|
|
...
EDIT: Nuclear power is also not allowed with the Green New Deal.
Lie. I posted the resolution link. I cannot click on it and read it for you. Looks like he's right. the Green New Deal calls for the entire country to be powered by renewable energy. While solar and wind energy are prominently featured, one power source is deliberately left out: nuclear.https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a26255413/green-new-deal-nuclear-power/ |
|
|
|
...
How do you know that there would be no burning of methane around the spacecraft?....
because reentry is at 50-100 miles altitude, near vacuum for one reason Look up "transpiration cooling" to learn more. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
