| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
straw man "Why are you even running for president if you don't have an opinoon on anything yourself, and can't do anything yourself?" straw man "spending millions of dollars researching the Trump psychology to have a chance in debates" straw man + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://the405media.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/3q3bvxxf-1353902236.jpg) | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 09 2016 05:39 FiWiFaKi wrote: Mind providing an explanation? I had a university project to design a self levelling platform and securing mechanism for UAV's. UAV's with a rotor diameter of 50-70cm weighing between 10-25lbs, could easily maneuver with 5-15lb payloads in 40km/hr winds. In terms of the engineering side of things, they are very stable, it has a stable signal, and it had the payload needed to mount remotely controlled firearms and such. From a practical point of view (them getting shot down and potentially dangerous items could be stolen from them, etc.) is a different matter. I was referring a mass produced police drone that would be viable to deploy these less than lethal weapons and not be shot down or knocked out of the sky by protesters or whoever they want to use it on. Most drones are not that rugged. The main defense that flying vehicles have is being able to go up really high so we can’t hit them. But that sort of ruins their ability to accurately deploy these weapons at a reasonable cost. Drones are cool, but we are a long way from sending cool flying robots in with our swat team like the Avengers. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 09 2016 05:43 ragz_gt wrote: ??? I sure hope whoever will be making decision for US will have a huge team of experts for anything they do. Relying on educated people with years of practical knowledge and experience on a subject is for noobs. Better to have your own opinions on the subject, no matter how poorly informed and put those into action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 09 2016 05:59 Plansix wrote: Relying on educated people with years of practical knowledge and experience on a subject is for noobs. Better to have your own opinions on the subject, no matter how poorly informed and put those into action. Also, the decisions that are easy to make don't end up on the president's desk. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15663 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 09 2016 05:59 Plansix wrote: Relying on educated people with years of practical knowledge and experience on a subject is for noobs. Better to have your own opinions on the subject, no matter how poorly informed and put those into action. Topics like abortion and gun rights, and whether to help or not to help refugees are not questions that there is consensus on (unless republican and democrat advisors are going to different schools lol). The main reason is that these issues are ethical issues, not economic issues (sure, they have an economic component, but I'd say that the main component in them is our values and ethics), and I don't need an expert to tell me what my ethics should be. I've done the analysis quite a few times in the Gun Thread here on TL about why I don't think the cost of gun legalization isn't bad at all, as the number of deaths isn't large, even though it's 3-5x higher per capita than western Europe. And how these costs (to me), are worth the price to my values. So yes, particular issues, I expect the candidate to not need help with, and expect them to get guidance. That's on economic policy, central bank, foreign relations, regulatory bodies, etc... Talking to the public, debating, having opinions on non-economic issues... Those are all things I expect a candidate to have. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:16 FiWiFaKi wrote: Topics like abortion and gun rights, and whether to help or not to help refugees are not questions that there is consensus on (unless republican and democrat advisors are going to different schools lol). The main reason is that these issues are ethical issues, not economic issues (sure, they have an economic component, but I'd say that the main component in them is our values and ethics), and I don't need an expert to tell me what my ethics should be. I've done the analysis quite a few times in the Gun Thread here on TL about why I don't think the cost of gun legalization isn't bad at all, as the number of deaths isn't large, even though it's 3-5x higher per capita than western Europe. And how these costs (to me), are worth the price to my values. So yes, particular issues, I expect the candidate to not need help with, and expect them to get guidance. That's on economic policy, central bank, foreign relations, regulatory bodies, etc... Talking to the public, debating, having opinions on non-economic issues... Those are all things I expect a candidate to have. You just named three issues where their is solid information that experts can provide information that never makes it to the political arena. None of which are ethical. Reducing access to abortions is a public health risk for example. And outlawing them will not reduce the number of women getting them, only make them far less safe. If you think the guns thread is providing you with solid, fact based information on gun violence, you might need to look little farther. Like beyond the internet. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote: It is fascinating to infer what people must think the function of a president to be. I feel like the actual role/responsibilities/actions of a president would be a surprise to a lot of people and they may vote based on wildly incorrect perspectives on the role of a president. What is it in your opinion? -He's the figurehead of the USA -Appoints important people in government (hence his values matter) -Decides on foreign relations + war -Veto laws that he doesn't agree with Are the primary roles, besides secondary stuff like giving speeches for why what congress is doing is important, and why you should support it, etc. | ||
KwarK
United States42555 Posts
On September 09 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote: They will never replace helicopters. Their ability to stay airborne is limited by battery life and they don’t provide the same amount of information to the user. They will have roles, but police use helicopters for things that drones can’t do, like cover huge areas. Plus they last longer. Disagree 110%. A helicopter can provide far, far less information that a drone swarm with self flying and pack coordination AI, neither of which is particularly far-fetched. A helicopter is also hugely limited by cost which rule out the use of it in most situations simply because there are more situations that would benefit from a helicopter than there are helicopters, so in most cases the choice is between no helicopter or the drones. The cost and the fact that it's manned, not to mention the fuel, insurance and pilot related expenses, also force the user to be extremely cautious. I don't think it's at all unlikely that we'll see police controlled drone swarms operated remotely from a central hub that are capable of flying autonomously, tracking a target (including route mapping and obstacle avoidance while following the target) and basic problem solving if instructed to get a closer shot or different angle or whatever. The comparison isn't between a helicopter and a drone. It's been a helicopter or a thousand drones. Helicopters had a lot of advantages when cameras were giant bulky things, when flying required a pilot and when data transmission was most easily done by having an officer on board look out the window, see where the guy was and encode that using words transmitted over a radio. Autonomous flying is a thing now, cameras can be mounted on tiny drones and you can feed a shitton of live video feeds direct to a command centre remotely. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:21 Plansix wrote: You just named three issues where their is solid information that experts can provide information that never makes it to the political arena. If you think the guns thread is providing you with solid, fact based information on gun violence, you might need to look little farther. Like beyond the internet. If you're suggesting to go live in one of those the crime ridden communities, then I have lived in comparable places. The democrat leaning "experts" look at the economic costs, the republican leaning ones look at freedoms and constitution. I gave a very fact based analysis of the number of deaths, injuries, and percentages due to criminal activity. Looked at mass homicides, etc.. If you compare these to other causes of death, it's quite small. If you can't agree that there is no right answer based on a scientific approach at the moment, then this discussion wont go anywhere further. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:22 FiWiFaKi wrote: What is it in your opinion? -He's the figurehead of the USA -Appoints important people in government (hence his values matter) -Decides on foreign relations + war -Veto laws that he doesn't agree with Are the primary roles, besides secondary stuff like giving speeches for why what congress is doing is important, and why you should support it, etc. -He's the figurehead of the USA – Not really, but sure, whatever. -Appoints important people in government (hence his values matter) – Controls every aspect of government not controlled by congress, including the FBI, CIA and NSA. Plus all the non- law enforcement branches. -Decides on foreign relations + war – Sort of and Not really, no. He can take minor military actions. He cannot go to war on his own. Creates treaties, which must be approved by congress. -Veto laws that he doesn't agree with – And approves laws presented to him by congress. Can also introduce bills to congress as well. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:23 KwarK wrote: Disagree 110%. A helicopter can provide far, far less information that a drone swarm with self flying and pack coordination AI, neither of which is particularly far-fetched. A helicopter is also hugely limited by cost which rule out the use of it in most situations simply because there are more situations that would benefit from a helicopter than there are helicopters, so in most cases the choice is between no helicopter or the drones. The cost and the fact that it's manned, not to mention the fuel, insurance and pilot related expenses, also force the user to be extremely cautious. I don't think it's at all unlikely that we'll see police controlled drone swarms operated remotely from a central hub that are capable of flying autonomously, tracking a target (including route mapping and obstacle avoidance while following the target) and basic problem solving if instructed to get a closer shot or different angle or whatever. The comparison isn't between a helicopter and a drone. It's been a helicopter or a thousand drones. Helicopters had a lot of advantages when cameras were giant bulky things, when flying required a pilot and when data transmission was most easily done by having an officer on board look out the window, see where the guy was and encode that using words transmitted over a radio. Autonomous flying is a thing now, cameras can be mounted on tiny drones and you can feed a shitton of live video feeds direct to a command centre remotely. I completely agree. Drones will very quickly replace drones, the only question is whether we want to let them. Personally I'm not a fan of an entire city being under surveillance 24/7, even at the expense of higher crime rates and whatnot. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, and I prefer something closer to the classic human experience. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:26 FiWiFaKi wrote: If you're suggesting to go live in one of those the crime ridden communities, then I have lived in comparable places. The democrat leaning "experts" look at the economic costs, the republican leaning ones look at freedoms and constitution. I gave a very fact based analysis of the number of deaths, injuries, and percentages due to criminal activity. Looked at mass homicides, etc.. If you compare these to other causes of death, it's quite small. If you can't agree that there is no right answer based on a scientific approach at the moment, then this discussion wont go anywhere further. No, I was suggesting you go find the interviews, reports on how guns end up the hands of criminals and other information on teh subject. This is a better way to become informed than skimming the entrenched gun debate thread where everyone provides information that solely benefits their point in an effort to win the argument on the internet. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2616 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:26 Plansix wrote: -He's the figurehead of the USA – Not really, but sure, whatever. -Appoints important people in government (hence his values matter) – Controls every aspect of government not controlled by congress, including the FBI, CIA and NSA. Plus all the non- law enforcement branches. -Decides on foreign relations + war – Sort of and Not really, no. He can take minor military actions. He cannot go to war. -Veto laws that he doesn't agree with – And approves laws presented to him by congress. Can also introduce bills to congress as well. Have you read the Constitution? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:26 Plansix wrote: -He's the figurehead of the USA – Not really, but sure, whatever. -Appoints important people in government (hence his values matter) – Controls every aspect of government not controlled by congress, including the FBI, CIA and NSA. Plus all the non- law enforcement branches. -Decides on foreign relations + war – Sort of and Not really, no. He can take minor military actions. He cannot go to war. -Veto laws that he doesn't agree with – And approves laws presented to him by congress. Can also introduce bills to congress as well. Executive power is no joke either. Lot of discretion on how federal code is enforced. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:34 TheLordofAwesome wrote: Have you read the Constitution? That specific section, not in like a decade ago or more. I forgot that the budget is introduced to congress at the president's request, not by the president directly. I stand corrected. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
issues with the article, I'm noting things as I go along, so it's more stream of consciousness as I read; here's the article link again for convenience: http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/ Seems odd to use an obscure pompous latin nom de plume, but doesn't really matter. The opening paragraphs are ridiculous histrionics; he notes that others may think it histrionic but seems to persist in his claim of that, no matter how objectively silly it is. then he goes on a long diatribe against conservative thinkers; not entirely without merit, but clearly emblematic of academic spats. He seems to assume his brand of conservatism is the correct one, even though others obviously will disagree with it. his complaint about the disparity in statements vs actions of the severity could be simplified to: politicians exaggerate problem to get votes (or other support, for non-politicians who, I guess, make their money off speaking fees or think tanks or somesuch). He himself is doing this same thing, exaggerating a problem to get whatever he's after (and/or simply not understanding it well). some sketchy claims about the causation of shifts in crime patterns; which don't seem at all justified by anything. he choose to assert things as questionable with a clear lack of understanding, or at least of recognition, of them: " But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them." then some paranoia and unfounded claims, and/or excessive claims. assertion that all media and universities are corrupt; which is a rather ridiculous overgeneralization, and just ridiculous on its face. he basically sounds like an extreme far right guy complaining abotu the right for not being far right enough. his claims of there being a "bipartisan junta" mostly just reek of crazy. then a paragraph on immigration which has a whole lot of stupid, and doens't relaly connect with reality much. then another idiot quote: "The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored." which shows a complete lack of understanding of the level of unity in american history. I think the flaws in this quote rather speak for itself: "The election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final test—of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite" so, like I said, a whole lot of drek. well-written drek, but the idea of someone with a rather poor grasp of reality. PS I know my response isn't that well written. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote: No, I was suggesting you go find the interviews, reports on how guns end up the hands of criminals and other information on teh subject. This is a better way to become informed than skimming the entrenched gun debate thread where everyone provides information that solely benefits their point in an effort to win the argument on the internet. I didn't go through interviews, but I did start at wikipedia, and followed a lot of the references and where that led me. Anyway, I wont go justify the quality of my arguments I made, but I think they were quality in nature, and I actually received a PM from one TL member thanking me for using a fact-based approach. I'm sure you'd still find issues (July 23rd is when I received it, if you care to go look at where I posted my argument), but anyway, decent quality posts imo. Also, I think what I expressed is a pretty accurate general summary of what the president does, you just chose to expand on it, and I could expand on what you said if I cared. As for you war argument, I believe that the president can do almost anything he wants with the exception of officially declaring war. "On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[21] These include instances in which the United States fought in the Philippine–American War from 1898–1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999." I imagine he can gain approval for just about any kind of strategic mission and movement of military personnel once approvement for the conflict has gained approval. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2616 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:37 Plansix wrote: That specific section, not in like a decade ago or more. I forgot that the budget is introduced to congress at the president's request, not by the president directly. I stand corrected. The president cannot introduce any legislation himself. He has to find congressmen to do it for him. Usually though that isn't very hard. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15663 Posts
On September 09 2016 06:40 TheLordofAwesome wrote: The president cannot introduce any legislation himself. He has to find congressmen to do it for him. Usually though that isn't very hard. I mean, if he's gonna introduce something, it is likely something that will get at least 1 vote. I think it is a fair approximation to say the president is the one doing the introducing. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
WardiTV European League
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs Cure
FEL
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
