President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
The system you have proposed would almost certainly cause more environmental harm for at least a very long time. But again, I don't think that's what is driving any of this.If I take all of this in good faith again, the level of black market leakage on a global scale because you decided to cut aviation, cars and the most complex delivery systems and methods available while als
You really should ask more questions before engaging your vivid fantasies.
The most important thing is the continuity of vital services. From the ground up, that's food, water, housing, electricity, hospitals, water sanitation, supply chains, etc.
Think about it like going to war. Instead of going to war with another tribe / nation of people, we're going to war with a system which is environmentally destructive.
It's been 160 years since the Civil War was fought on US soil, so war is a completely abstract concept for Americans. We came together as a nation to participate in WW2 and had to ration all sorts of things like gasoline, butter, meat and coffee.
It's not nearly as complicated as you seem to want to make it.
You really should ask more questions before engaging your vivid fantasies. The most important thing is the continuity of vital services. From the ground up, that's food, water, housing, electricity, hospitals, water sanitation, supply chains, etc.Think about it like going to war. Instead of going to war with another tribe / nation of people, we're going to war with a system whi
Wait, who's govt is going to handle this worldwide? I thought that you were advocating that all this will be done from an entity that hasn't yet formed?
You can't just curb overconsumption on a standalone basis.
Many people are employed in industries which supply the goods which cater to the overconsumption. If you take away those jobs, how do people afford to pay for their necessities ?
You have to begin with a foundation of UBI so that people have their basic needs met. You need a resource distribution system to ensure that those basic needs are delivered.
Community leaders are not responsible for the production of every local need. Agriculture, manufacturing and power generation doesn't work that way. We still need to access resources from distant locations and exchange resources with other regions.
Community leaders are responsible for community coordination, local distribution, political representation and points of contact within a larger coordinated society. Communities will have human resource openings which need to be filled.
Let's say you have a community of 50,000 people. You need access to an equipped and hospital. You need schoolteachers. You need a fire department and a police force. A bar where locals can get together over a few beers. Your community has a manufacturing facility which maybe makes toilet paper or soap which serves a larger population of a few million. You have a public park with a grass field which requires a lawnmower and some gas.
There has to be a mechanism to connect supply and demand in the absence of a free market. A community leader would be responsible for providing the organization the local delivery of community needs.
Wait, who's govt is going to handle this worldwide? I thought that you were advocating that all this will be done from an entity that hasn't yet formed?
Initially, it can be implemented through existing governments.
The US executive branch and Congress have the power to declare war and martial law.
It's not specifically required that national governments be disbanded. The only requirement is limiting the types of pollution which are detrimental to the species as a whole.
Initially, it can be implemented through existing governments.
The US executive branch and Congress have the power to declare war and martial law.
It's not specifically required that national governments be disbanded. The only requirement is limiting the types of pollution which are detrimental to the species as a whole.
You mentioned that the entire world will be one country. Now you say it will be implemented through existing governments.
If we keep national governments, then there must be an international treaty regarding pollution.
If we can't learn to cooperate, we're all doomed.
Okay, that makes a little more sense. I'd suggest we test that theory first before jumping in. Or at least decide which way to go.
... Sounds like an international treaty would be a good first step to test the waters with how countries will be coordinating on pollution rather than just spontaneously somehow creating one country out of the blue, and assuming that everyone just decides to agree on stuff.
You mentioned that the entire world will be one country. Now you say it will be implemented through existing governments.
With respect to common and critical types of pollution, the world must act as if we were all one country. We must respect that we share global resources like atmosphere, oceans and fresh water supplies which do not adhere to national boundaries.
Nowhere did I say anything will be done through existing governments, I said it can be done through existing governments.
Pretty sure he was just busting your nut nuts.That said, I could see you being a FLO8 nut peddler. The worst hand you probably come into the pot with in EP is 1235 with a suited ace. The last time you raised preflop was in 1987, and you scream at the floor about an open seat if a seat has been open for one hand. You cry loudly anytime people want to play 5x2, and you run for
Reminds me of my early online poker experience playing nanostakes LHE after reading Hellmuth. Of course, I only played Hellmuth's Top Ten Hands: 77+, AQ+.
Okay, that makes a little more sense. I'd suggest we test that theory first before jumping in. Or at least decide which way to go.... Sounds like an international treaty would be a good first step to test the waters with how countries will be coordinating on pollution rather than just spontaneously somehow creating one country out of the blue, and assuming that everyone just
The trick is all about how we transition.
The status quo is all about a hierarchy based upon money and the people in the status quo control the political process and the information available to the public.
Someone who wanted to implement this transition would not be given a platform to present their ideas and participate in public debate. A presidential debate is presided over by multi-millionaire anchors working for billionaire owners. Those media companies are funded by advertising by pharmaceutical companies whose products are in demand as a result of overconsumption.
A new system in which the shareholders can no longer purchase the decisions of the legislature and the content of the media companies will be resisted by its status quo owners.
This is a big problem ..... there's no meaningful public medium for these ideas to be seriously debated.
You really should ask more questions before engaging your vivid fantasies. The most important thing is the continuity of vital services. From the ground up, that's food, water, housing, electricity, hospitals, water sanitation, supply chains, etc.Think about it like going to war. Instead of going to war with another tribe / nation of people, we're going to war with a system whi
Folks sacrificed for a greater good for four years...not for eternity.
And also the War Machine created a gazillion jobs which ended the Great Depression.
During Covid, folks were griping about having to wear a mask in public. We aren't the same sturdy stock as previous generations.
If I was younger and had the necessary capital, I could probably get rich manufacturing and selling fainting couches these days.
So did nutsack win his fake presidential election on the politics subforum of 2+2 yet?
With respect to common and critical types of pollution, the world must act as if we were all one country. We must respect that we share global resources like atmosphere, oceans and fresh water supplies which do not adhere to national boundaries.
Nowhere did I say anything will be done through existing governments, I said it can be done through existing governments.
That's fair. I was just trying to figure out whether we are going to act as if we are one country in some allegorical sense or that we are going to be one country because you said this ...
First of all .... there wouldn't be any more countries. The entire world would be one country and we could eliminate all of the unnecessary pollution associated with defending national boundaries.
It seems like figuring out how to do that would be a necessary first step for there to be any realistic chance of this working.
How nice. Nothing owns the libs like being an overtly corrupt pile of refuse.
My wages are not keeping up with inflation, nor are those of my spouse, but this is who and what the people chose. It’s not like they didn’t know Trump was such a selfish shithead when they voted for him. They WANTED this.
****ing Morons.
Rococo would not for a regime devoid of environmental regulation .... but he doesn't have an option to vote against it.
I have no idea what this sentence means.
There has to be a mechanism to connect supply and demand in the absence of a free market. A community leader would be responsible for providing the organization the local delivery of community needs.
Yes, there most certainly is a mechanism but your community leader + captains arent going to actually deliver any of these fields and bars, let alone food or water.
I think you should abandon the democratic bit since it should be obvious that less than 1% of the populous is going to voluntarily vote or support this. We already talked about state assignment of jobs and forced labor. Now its UBI in the the absence of a free market.
It means that representatives of neither of the two parties available to American voters support the regulatory limits on pollution necessary to preserve human civilization.
You don't have the option of voting for the environmentally regulatory regime you claim you would vote for.
What I am proposing is unique in its willingness and feasibility to preserve human civilization and you won't come out and say that you would vote for those policies either.
So ..... where does this lead in terms of the possible explanations for Rococo's position ?
a) he's too ignorant to understand that we are on a trajectory toward environmental triggered collapse of human civilization
b) he's too ignorant to understand that current govt proposals are inadequate to avoid collapse
c) he believes that there are other options than mine to avoid collapse but he's not willing to disclose them
d) he's lying about his willingness to vote for adequate environmental regulation
e) he's got nothing to offer beyond empty criticism
f) some other explanation
I don't like to mind read Rococo. I'm happy to allow you to fill in the blanks.
I think you should abandon the democratic bit since it should be obvious that less than 1% of the populous is going to voluntarily vote or support this. .
I think you are going to be very surprised by what the people will come to support.
If someone suggested that Donald Trump would become POTUS while he was acting in The Apprentice, what odds would you have given ? If someone suggested in 1855 that Lincoln would become POTUS, the odds would have been quite low.
History informs that the zeitgeist of the population shifts with its survival interests and an avatar emerges to fit their energy. The zeitgeist is moving left. A minor avatar like Mandami is symptomatic of a shift in which younger voters are expressing a preference for socialism. Boomers are dying off.
In my opinion, what I am suggesting is likely to emerge because humans prefer survival. It may be emerge too late to be effective, but I don't see any force in nature that will give rise to people dying voluntarily.
