- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,759
- 3,334
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
California has surpassed Japan and is now the 4th largest economy in the world.
Just keeps on taking Ws.
Just keeps on taking Ws.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
That's what happens when you have poor work-life balance and a low birthrate. Your economy will crash. Also, what happens when elderly people are the majority of the political power?
We don't have thorium reactors. There are another thing coming "soon". There doesn't exist a single commercial thorium reactor in the whole world.
Yet the research has been around since ... the 1940s.
Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Also China.
‘No quick wins’: China has the world’s first operational thorium nuclear reactor
Team working on project reportedly achieves milestone by completing fuel reloading while experimental molten salt reactor was running.
www.scmp.com
But about the economic point. The problem with that is that financials aren't the whole picture. How many people have died from coal, lead-based and non-lead-based gasoline, and how much groundwater has been contaminated from LNG? Nuclear has problems, but those are much better than all of the above, and don't even get me started on solar, wind, and their insane, dirty, rare-earth mines.
Yes, i know.
Yet there is not a single one running to provide electricity. We only have experimental installations and even then only three unless i missed one. In a way we are closer to fusion than to thorium.
Don't get me wrong, thorium is promising. And might well contribute significantly to worldwide energy production ... from the 50s on. We probably start to build the first commercial one around 2030, considering nowhere in the world exists a working concept yet, It will probably be ready to be used at around 2040 or slightly before that. Then, when it proofed successful, other countries will start building, which will again take several years each time.
But that way too late for our current need for energy and it is also too late for the transition away from fossils.
And whose fault is that? Anti-nuclear activists fearmongering like that from the Green Party, Greenpeace, the German government, the Simpsons, the media in general, and the fossil fuel industry. Also, I'm sure we will still be using LNG in the 2050s, so that argument is moot. And I can almost certainly promise you we will still be fighting climate change into the 2060s, given many countries like the US, India, China, etc, still use coal.
If stated, I want to take away most of the guns of Americans. It would not be constitutional by de facto, and I would have communicated like an idiot.
If stated, I want to ban all assault weapons/semi-automatic, or just limit all gun magazines to 5 -10 bullets. That's suddenly not unconstitutional. Both are the same thing, but one is somehow more reasonable.
Also, this guy told the democratic Alaska senator who lost to another republican who likes guns to you deserve it for not wanting to get rid of guns federally while representing in Alaska, which has many wild animals, no major cities, and is next to Russia.
If you want to get rid of most of the guns in America, do an amendment.
Last edited:
Lol, no. Green parties and environmental activists are absolutely not the reason nuclear power hasn't grown at the rate it could-- they're simply not that powerful or influential.
That's down to the fossil fuel industry.
They are part of the reason and part of the push. Some are even funded by oil and gas companies like Gazprom with the German Greens, and the Rockefeller family with the Sierra Club.
War and poor election odds sharpen Greens’ atomic split
Energy security fears have prompted internal debate on an issue that helped birth the movement.
www.politico.eu
Rockefeller family group invests millions in oil and gas while shaping green energy agenda - Washington Examiner
One of the principal grantmakers steering the wealth of the Rockefeller family holds major oil and gas industry investments despite the deep-pocketed foundation's work to promote the green energy agenda, financial disclosures show. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a private foundation founded in...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Source ?
The only thing that happened as far as i know was Russia creating a supposed environmentalist foundation puppet to lobby on its behalf (no connection to Green party or even any existing German environmentalists) and on another instance giving some money to 3 environmentalist NGOs to push them to argue against American shale gas to make Russian gas seem more favorable. Again, not the Green party.
Oh and the Greenpeace thing : At some time Greenpeace Germany help create a energy supplier company (actually cooperative) that was supposed to create an environmental better alternative. From the start it guaranteed at least 50% renewables and no coal and nuclear whatsoever. Quite ambitious considering it went into business in 2000. Since then it has mostly been in the news for building water- wind and photovoltaic plants. Of course that also meant that most of the rest came from Russian gas they regularly paid for. But even that is long over. They have mananged to go 100% solar, wind and water for some time now while growing in scale.
Not exactly some kind of scandal. Based on that it is a cooperative with tens of thousands of members, there is not much room for secret Russian money and lobbying.
Don't believe every conspiration nonsense you read on reddit.
Last edited:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,759
- 3,334
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
So the Trump administration is now "deporting" US citizens.
Deporting is in quotes since they can't actually deport a US citizen, so this is really more like kidnapping and human trafficking.
www.bbc.com
www.rollingstone.com
Deporting is in quotes since they can't actually deport a US citizen, so this is really more like kidnapping and human trafficking.
Two-year-old US citizen may have been deported without 'meaningful process'
A federal judge said there was "strong suspicion" the Louisiana-born girl had been sent to Honduras with her mother and sister.
www.bbc.com
Trump Has Now Deported Multiple U.S. Citizen Children With Cancer
Two families who had lived in the United States for years, including a child with cancer and a pregnant mother, were deported by ICE on Friday.
www.rollingstone.com
time for the US to document this extensively so everyone involved can be procecuted when the US has a real government againSo the Trump administration is now "deporting" US citizens.
Deporting is in quotes since they can't actually deport a US citizen, so this is really more like kidnapping and human trafficking.
Two-year-old US citizen may have been deported without 'meaningful process'
A federal judge said there was "strong suspicion" the Louisiana-born girl had been sent to Honduras with her mother and sister.
Trump Has Now Deported Multiple U.S. Citizen Children With Cancer
Two families who had lived in the United States for years, including a child with cancer and a pregnant mother, were deported by ICE on Friday.
Funny events in the woke world. Well, sometimes the left really IS as out of touch, gullible and counter productively idealistic as the right claims they are. Case in point: The Dutch animal welfare party.
The party actually did something really surprising recently. They voted in favor of increased defense spending. Despite being heavily pacifistic they rightly recognized that all the values they hold dear will turn to ash if Putin spreads his influence over Europe. They did what needed to be done....and instantly the party leader faced a revolt from the party over having done the right thing. Not helping matters is that some of the rebellious sentiment is just a continuation of a longer struggle against an extremely rigid old guard and a newer generation that's more flexible.
To the credit of the animal party even the ones opposing the increased defense spending seem smart enough to cast out people who only join their side out of a desire to settle old grudges.
The party actually did something really surprising recently. They voted in favor of increased defense spending. Despite being heavily pacifistic they rightly recognized that all the values they hold dear will turn to ash if Putin spreads his influence over Europe. They did what needed to be done....and instantly the party leader faced a revolt from the party over having done the right thing. Not helping matters is that some of the rebellious sentiment is just a continuation of a longer struggle against an extremely rigid old guard and a newer generation that's more flexible.
To the credit of the animal party even the ones opposing the increased defense spending seem smart enough to cast out people who only join their side out of a desire to settle old grudges.
Let's do that. You initially replied to me because I said to Silvanus that the deportations weren't of legal residents and I was asking of proof of that (that still hasn't been provided). I agreed with you that there are some individual cases that are pretty bad, but the narrative that ICE and Trump are just going around deporting legal residents, ignoring court orders, ignoring laws, etc.; that's all complete bunk. I do obviously care about the anyone getting wronged regardless of what it is (and that has happened) but it's not happening on a large or massive scale.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
"I know they did it for specific, malicious reasons, I just don't know what they are" is one hell of a delusion. Again, not what I'm saying. My central point is that this was not merely the result of broad policy, as you characterised it, sweeping up a few people in error. There need be no...
forums.escapistmagazine.com
This was also ALL BEFORE TRUMP. You guys only complain when someone you don't like does this stuff.Real question - Do you know what immigration courts are and what their purpose is?
Yes,. the government can forbid non-citizens from entering the county and can deport people. No one is questioning that fact. The mechanism by which the government deports people is what is in question, and you clearly don't understand how deportations actually work.
The supreme court has stated and upheld multiple times that people who are being deported have the right to a judicial review of the deportation. That is due process. That is the process by which it is determined who has legitimate claims to stay in the US and who does not. Without doing that the Trump administration is breaking the law.
I don't get what is so difficult to understand about this. This is how it has ALWAYS been. The people who were deported under Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden were deported with due process, with hearings and through judicial review. Why do you think that the Trump administration should get to bypass those laws?
Even expedited removal, which can be carried out without a court hearing still allows protections to people who indicate that they intend to apply for asylum or have a credible reason to fear for their safety if deported, and prior to removal an asylum officer must review their case, and if asylum is not granted the individual can request a hearing before an immigration judge who must review the case within 7 days. These are all legal requirements.
Expedited Removal Explainer
Expedited removal is a process by which low-level immigration officers can quickly deport certain noncitizens who are undocumented or have committed fraud or misrepresentation.www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
You seem to have this idea about how all of this works that is based completely on your own feelings and has nothing to do with how deportations actually work, and so you're literally arguing against a strawman that you have made up in your head.
It would be the same amount that we currently have BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT ALREADY WORKS.
The deportation process has been transformed drastically over the last two decades. Today, two-thirds of individuals deported are subject to what are known as “summary removal procedures,” which deprive them of both the right to appear before a judge and the right to apply for status in the United States. In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Congress established streamlined deportation procedures that allow the government to deport (or “remove”) certain noncitizens from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge. Two of these procedures, “expedited removal” and “reinstatement of removal,” allow immigration officers to serve as both prosecutor and judge—often investigating, charging, and making a decision all within the course of one day. These rapid deportation decisions often fail to take into account many critical factors, including whether the individual is eligible to apply for lawful status in the United States, whether he or she has long-standing ties here, or whether he or she has U.S.-citizen family members.
Removal Without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States
The deportation process has been transformed drastically over the last two decades. Today, two-thirds of individuals deported are subject to what are known as “summary removal procedures,” which deprive them of both the right to appear before a judge and the right to apply for status in the...
I've literally never voted for a republican...
I'm very liberal but most liberal policies are horseshit so I'm going to be against them. For example, with schools, property taxes should be pulled together and given out to schools evenly on a per student basis obviously (and adjust for cost of living as well). But when discussions about improving schools come up, that is never on the table, and it's usually some bullshit thing that's only going to make them worse (and schools having been getting worse and worse) and thus I've not going to be for those policies. Same thing with energy, build nuclear power plants but that, again, is never on the table.
People are literally complaining about what Trump is doing when every other president over that past few decades has done it. If you're not going to be honest about what your team does and only criticize the other team, you're not helping. The country that did the best with regards to covid did literally what I said was the best policies to implement. Unlike you, I wasn't saying we need the most protections on the healthiest section of the population and like no rules on the most vulnerable.
YOU DON'T NEED DUE PROCESS as I linked to above in this post.
No. You've made it abundantly clear that you do not care. You've only "admitted" to them in the vaguest of senses (a la "I don't agree with all of it, but...") as a rhetorical concession to logroll that the entire situation is a non-issue unworthy of concern. Hell, when the specifics of even the cases that you claimed to acknowledge as an issue were brought up to you, you wasted no time in trying to excuse, justify, and downplay them as only technically wrong rather than "pretty bad". And even then, you couldn't even resist trying to further excuse them by mischaracterizing the facts of the case to claim that the missteps you were pretending to acknowledge were in fact fully justified! While you claim to recognize them as "pretty bad", your arguments have consistently shown the opposite; that you don't think they're bad, that you don't think they're cause for concern, that you don't even think they warrant redress because you've contextualized them as the well-earned cost of a policy you've made it clear that you enthusiastically support.
Who exactly do you think you're fooling, aside from yourself? You aren't arguing because you have anything insightful to add (hell you've repeatedly gone out of your way to avoid engaging with the substance of the topic). You're just arguing because you want to have the final word.
Last edited:
That's not what your source says.
You've already been provided with rulings from two federal courts on this matter, statements from lawyers, and detailed explanations. You failed (or refused) to read or comprehend them. There's no point in continuing this discussion when you won't or can't engage honestly.
I care much more about big picture issues than isolated incidents. I'm not even arguing, I'm asking for actual proof of someone else's claim that they can't prove.
It's literally what my source says, it's literally what every president from the past like 30 years has done.
Bull shit. You've spent weeks now arguing that the things you're now trying to brush off as "isolated incidents" can't actually be legitimate, the process of which has consistently shown that you don't understand the underlying rule of law that makes the incidents concerning nor have even taken the time to read about the incidents beyond the headlines that the people being criticized have favored. You've consistently looked for any excuse to dismiss objections to them out of hand as necessarily overreactions, and quibbled over semantics and used equivocation and misrepresentation to try and argue that there was necessarily no problem with them whatsoever. That you're now trying to recast it as 'big picture vs isolated incidents' is just you trying a different angle now, and an exceptionally dishonest one considering how much of the last few pages have been explaining that the very thing that makes these "isolated incidents" you refer to so concerning is how they slot into a broader pattern.
It's not that you're looking at it from a different scope, it's that you're refusing to engage with the information and are mischaracterizing that as "big picture thinking" to justify your resultant apathy, to tell yourself that whatever has been provided to you cannot be sufficient, that it must instead be "isolated incidents" because you insist on looking at them all in a vacuum rather than analyzing them within the context of each other, allowing you to rationalize to yourself that any merit in the objections must be limited to "isolated incidents".
Let's see the exact quote. That shows deportees are not entitled to due process. Let's see it.
From your own source, under 'Due process and the courts': "Our legal system rests upon the principle that everyone is entitled to due process of law and a meaningful opportunity to be heard."
Last edited:
You guys don't understand the underlying law. Silvanus keeps sayings all these protected people are being deported, not true. Now everyone is saying deportations require due process, again, not true. I completely agreed with the isolated incidents that are wrong but most of these overarching claims made by others simply aren't true. Some mistakes and/or overzealous ICE enforcement is a problem but the narrative that ICE is going around rounding up all these protected/legal residents with absolutely no respect for the law is complete fucking bullocks.
The deportation process has been transformed drastically over the last two decades. Today, two-thirds of individuals deported are subject to what are known as “summary removal procedures,” which deprive them of both the right to appear before a judge and the right to apply for status in the United States. In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Congress established streamlined deportation procedures that allow the government to deport (or “remove”) certain noncitizens from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge. Two of these procedures, “expedited removal” and “reinstatement of removal,” allow immigration officers to serve as both prosecutor and judge—often investigating, charging, and making a decision all within the course of one day. These rapid deportation decisions often fail to take into account many critical factors, including whether the individual is eligible to apply for lawful status in the United States, whether he or she has long-standing ties here, or whether he or she has U.S.-citizen family members.
Also, this is from 2014. Funny how ya'll only b!tch about this stuff when someone you don't like is doing it. Why wasn't this some massive discussion when Obama was in office?