|
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. |
On January 28 2018 20:08 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2018 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2018 12:19 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 12:08 thePunGun wrote:On January 28 2018 11:52 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 11:22 thePunGun wrote:On January 28 2018 10:59 zlefin wrote:On January 28 2018 08:15 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 08:10 NewSunshine wrote:On January 28 2018 07:24 Danglars wrote:
This forum isn't famous for a spectrum of ideological diversity. It's more the place where you accuse opponents of hating brown people and loving Trump. Utter hogwash. The fact that the majority of people here disagree with you doesn't make them all far leftists. Plenty of people hold plenty of different opinions, and for different reasons. I regularly find things I disagree on between myself and regular posters such as P6 or GH, even Kwark. The difference is I find them (largely) reasonable. If you feel like the world is out to get you, perhaps try examining the way you interact with people, or the positions you hold. Didn't this forum use to be pretty much 50-50 left/right before Trump? I think that speaks volumes in and of itself. Trump and the republican party just isn't reasonable any more. There is zero worth in there. It's an "opposition party" whose only values are to be opposed of the other party (and, as it turns out, to be opposed of any reason and intelligence). Also, as a quote has been going around states: "Everything is left when you're to the right of Mussolini" the forum has always been left-leaning iirc; though if you count just american posters i'm less sure, though it probably still was somewhat. it is true that the republicans have been getting crazier and crazier; and have gone full loco with trump, and this has afflicted many who post on that side (to varying degrees). also partisanship (plus people in general bein stupid) causes many right-leaning posters to defend other right-leaning posters even when they shouldn't be. Kind of ironic, but ...whether you're left or right-leaning doesn't actually matter. Because this system will always cater for its owners, the rich fat cats. They don't care who wins the 'dog race' because every single dog, that's running on that track is actually running for them. I'm the only one in my family who doesn't vote and whenever, they leave the house to 'place their bets'... I remind them: "Whoever you've chosen won't matter, the house always wins!" (edit: I used animal references, not because I loathe them, I love animals (I only hate politicians). Never understood the dog/ cat person thing though, both are awesome so why choose?  ) Unlike Zlefin I'm going to come out and say that this is entirely wrong. Yes, the US political system is completely fucked, maybe beyond repair, due to its "donations" (Which everywhere else in the world would be called corruption), first past the post, gerrymandering and electoral college to name a few. It's a system which caters to the rich so they can get their way. This does not(!) however mean that every party/president/senator is the same. There are wide differences, and some do actually try to fight for your interests along side those of his donors, to a varying degree. Some people do actually become politicians because they want to make a difference, and they are fighting their own system to attempt to fight for you. To pretend that Hillary would be the same as Trump is laughable. With Hillary you might not have felt a huge difference in your daily life, much like with Obama, but there's a good chance she would have steered the country in the right direction in the long run while simultaneously catering to her own interests. Trump on the other hand is hellbent on tearing the country apart. He gives no shits about your interests. He only cares about himself and how his rich friends view him, and he is willing to lie and attack every liberty you might think you have to do it. Even if you think Hillary would have been a bad president, you still should have voted for her as the lesser evil. This "my vote doesn't matter anyways" is a common misconception I hear a lot, but you not voting is literally why Trump is president right now, and your life and those around you either is or will be actively worse because of it. The 2 misconceptions here are, that the U.S. is a democracy and that every vote matters. It is not, it's a republic with an electoral college. The electoral college was established for a reason, for the very same reason I've mentioned above, to keep the rich in power. "Republic" means "representative democracy", which is a form of democracy. Your vote matters, just to a varying degree depending on your location. The electoral college was established for a variety of no longer valid reasons, but not because "the rich wanted power". This is history book material you can google so I won't repeat it here (tl;dr: long distances with long travel times, + wanted the president to govern the states more than the people directly). I know we all like to hate on the rich for greedily grabbing too much political power, but they're not some kind of Illuminati either. The misconceptions are all in your own view I'm afraid. Like I said this is a common one I've heard a lot, but it doesn't make it true. Certain elections have come down to just a handful of people, and more importantly you are not alone in thinking like you. If everyone who did actually went and voted instead, it would be enough to push every single election. So while you're sitting there smirking to yourself for being so wise, you are literally fulfilling your own prophecy of your vote not mattering because it's not cast in the first place. Who are some of the politicians that you think would trade a life of wealth, power, and job security for helping people less fortunate? None, but this also proves you didn't read what I actually said. It's entierly possible to work several interests at the same time. Unlike a certain few politicians who will only work for their own at the cost of everyone else.
That sounds like a perception issue. Sounds to me like they are all on board to secure their own future by exploiting less fortunate people and some feel an obligation to bring a small group of people with them (but never in a way that endangers the secure control of their owners).
That people will empower their owners while also making things apparently less shitty for the exploited is what I expect. It's actually sacrificing their own personal gain for the interests of the exploited which seems universally disregarded by anyone with influence politically.
EDIT: to be clear, they I don't know a single national figure (save MAYBE Bernie) that would trade their own success and enrichment for the betterment of society, and as would follow, given the ultimatum, they would choose continuing the exploitation.
What I wonder is if Bernie (or a political equivalent) is the Democrat nominee will those same people enthusiastically tell people it's Bernie or you might as well abandon American Democracy?
|
Sounds like you'd be a fan of our socialist party GH, the congresspeople there have to donate most of their salary to the party so they don't earn more than normal staffers
|
On January 28 2018 20:29 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Sounds like you'd be a fan of our socialist party GH, the congresspeople there have to donate most of their salary to the party so they don't earn more than normal staffers
Right now I'd be thrilled to hear USians are looking at the Mondragon Corporation for inspiration.
|
On January 28 2018 04:48 Danglars wrote:
Thirdly, and this is the other post I made, it's really about them convincing people that black and white truths like apple/banana are close to what's going to be erased through repetition.
A foreign diplomat stood in front of reporters who asked him about things that he said and his response was 'I didn't say that it's fake news' and then when they rolled the clip he just refused to answer.
Trump has multiple times claimed he didn't say things he actually did.
Didn't he once claim it wasn't even his voice on the Access Hollywood tape?
How much more 'this banana is an apple' can you get than someone literally saying he didn't say something he was recorded saying?
I think it's quite right to have those discussions ongoing, because if the Trumpist approach to truth works, your country is legitimately doomed and you'll almost certainly slide into fascism sooner or later. Once an environment is created where the public believe what they're told by those in power uncritically, and ignore any competing narrative, it's only a matter of time before you get someone in power with the intelligence and drive to use that situation to their advantage. Trump, fortunately, only wants to be rich and to be able to claim he's the best in the world at everything. Anyone who thinks its going to happen now is wrong, but everyone who sees the warning signs is right.
In theory, the US should be fascism-proof because of the number of checks and balances set into the system. But right now, playing out live in the news, we're seeing how easily that system can fail. All it takes is for the people to believe what they're told and not demand answers for dubious behaviour, and a biased congress to just refuse to use the checks and balances in question.
So even if the discussion gets histrionic at times, it is good that it's happening, even in the terms it's happening. The truth does matter, and the people should demand more of it, not less. If both sides of the political spectrum stopped being hypocritical and demanded high standards of behaviour from both sides, a lot of problems would get cleared up real quick. But you've gotten so polarised that people non-ironically (fortunately not enough people) say they'd rather have a paedophile in the senate than a Democrat (not to re-litigate that; but several people said even if Roy Moore was guilty they'd have voted for him over Doug).
On January 28 2018 20:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2018 20:29 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Sounds like you'd be a fan of our socialist party GH, the congresspeople there have to donate most of their salary to the party so they don't earn more than normal staffers Right now I'd be thrilled to here USians are looking at the Mondragon Corporation for inspiration.
I get the feeling many in the US would be happy to look to Kakos industries for inspiration. And a non-existent karma point if you understand that without google.
|
Asked if he believed in climate change, Trump said: “There is a cooling, and there’s a heating. I mean look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming. That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place. The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records. They’re at a record level.”
Well, your scientist in chief is rather smort. There's no global warming because it's getting cold. So they called it climate change now. Also, ice caps. Record levels.
I think we should trust Dr. Trump. He obviously knows what he's talking about. It got cold in winter, so global warming, i mean lol. Obviously a hoax.
|
United States24633 Posts
On January 28 2018 18:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
They could also easily just eat canned meals but a presidents gotta eat good I guess That would make AF1 one of the least capable jets in the world by some measures... a strange thing to recommend. It would be quite cool if Trump said "I am going to make a personal sacrifice here to set the example of how we can safely save money" and opted for canned food but to expect him to do that is unreasonable.
Saying it's expensive because it needs to meet high requirements is a bit silly, because then the question becomes is it really necessary to have such high requirements. You should probably have an idea what requirements are driving the price before you say it's silly to point to the requirements when justifying a higher price. The onus would be on you to point to unreasonable or inappropriate requirements if you want to disagree with someone using requirements as a justification for higher prices.Wanting a scrapnel/biohazard proof cooling cell for meals (or whatever requirements makes it so expensive) is still a choice, not a necessity. Having an airworthy AF1 is also a choice, not a necessity... I think.
|
You know what, not even worth my time.
|
On January 28 2018 23:40 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2018 18:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
They could also easily just eat canned meals but a presidents gotta eat good I guess That would make AF1 one of the least capable jets in the world by some measures... a strange thing to recommend. It would be quite cool if Trump said "I am going to make a personal sacrifice here to set the example of how we can safely save money" and opted for canned food but to expect him to do that is unreasonable.
I mean for the emergency multiple week rations that require the huge coolers, not normal flight service.
Show nested quote +Saying it's expensive because it needs to meet high requirements is a bit silly, because then the question becomes is it really necessary to have such high requirements. You should probably have an idea what requirements are driving the price before you say it's silly to point to the requirements when justifying a higher price. The onus would be on you to point to unreasonable or inappropriate requirements if you want to disagree with someone using requirements as a justification for higher prices. Show nested quote +Wanting a scrapnel/biohazard proof cooling cell for meals (or whatever requirements makes it so expensive) is still a choice, not a necessity. Having an airworthy AF1 is also a choice, not a necessity... I think.
I'll agree with you on this point but since it's all classified I don't think the real requirements can be evaluated. But based on the cost I thought it's reasonable to guess they are quite special, a normal cooling cell costs thousands not millions
|
On January 29 2018 01:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2018 23:40 micronesia wrote:On January 28 2018 18:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
They could also easily just eat canned meals but a presidents gotta eat good I guess That would make AF1 one of the least capable jets in the world by some measures... a strange thing to recommend. It would be quite cool if Trump said "I am going to make a personal sacrifice here to set the example of how we can safely save money" and opted for canned food but to expect him to do that is unreasonable. I mean for the emergency multiple week rations that require the huge coolers, not normal flight service. Show nested quote +Saying it's expensive because it needs to meet high requirements is a bit silly, because then the question becomes is it really necessary to have such high requirements. You should probably have an idea what requirements are driving the price before you say it's silly to point to the requirements when justifying a higher price. The onus would be on you to point to unreasonable or inappropriate requirements if you want to disagree with someone using requirements as a justification for higher prices. Wanting a scrapnel/biohazard proof cooling cell for meals (or whatever requirements makes it so expensive) is still a choice, not a necessity. Having an airworthy AF1 is also a choice, not a necessity... I think. I'll agree with you on this point but since it's all classified I don't think the real requirements can be evaluated. But based on the cost I thought it's reasonable to guess they are quite special, a normal cooling cell costs thousands not millions
A normal cooling cell is also mass produced for use which drives the unit price down considerably. You can be pretty certain that stuff on air force one is one of a kind.
|
On January 29 2018 01:29 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 01:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On January 28 2018 23:40 micronesia wrote:On January 28 2018 18:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
They could also easily just eat canned meals but a presidents gotta eat good I guess That would make AF1 one of the least capable jets in the world by some measures... a strange thing to recommend. It would be quite cool if Trump said "I am going to make a personal sacrifice here to set the example of how we can safely save money" and opted for canned food but to expect him to do that is unreasonable. I mean for the emergency multiple week rations that require the huge coolers, not normal flight service. Saying it's expensive because it needs to meet high requirements is a bit silly, because then the question becomes is it really necessary to have such high requirements. You should probably have an idea what requirements are driving the price before you say it's silly to point to the requirements when justifying a higher price. The onus would be on you to point to unreasonable or inappropriate requirements if you want to disagree with someone using requirements as a justification for higher prices. Wanting a scrapnel/biohazard proof cooling cell for meals (or whatever requirements makes it so expensive) is still a choice, not a necessity. Having an airworthy AF1 is also a choice, not a necessity... I think. I'll agree with you on this point but since it's all classified I don't think the real requirements can be evaluated. But based on the cost I thought it's reasonable to guess they are quite special, a normal cooling cell costs thousands not millions A normal cooling cell is also mass produced for use which drives the unit price down considerably. You can be pretty certain that stuff on air force one is one of a kind.
Yeah, but why does it have to be? I am pretty sure other aircraft also have fridges in them. Why can't you use any of those? I highly doubt that they cost 23 million.
|
It's custom so it doesn't have any Obama bugs in it, clearly.
|
On January 29 2018 01:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 01:29 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 29 2018 01:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On January 28 2018 23:40 micronesia wrote:On January 28 2018 18:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
They could also easily just eat canned meals but a presidents gotta eat good I guess That would make AF1 one of the least capable jets in the world by some measures... a strange thing to recommend. It would be quite cool if Trump said "I am going to make a personal sacrifice here to set the example of how we can safely save money" and opted for canned food but to expect him to do that is unreasonable. I mean for the emergency multiple week rations that require the huge coolers, not normal flight service. Saying it's expensive because it needs to meet high requirements is a bit silly, because then the question becomes is it really necessary to have such high requirements. You should probably have an idea what requirements are driving the price before you say it's silly to point to the requirements when justifying a higher price. The onus would be on you to point to unreasonable or inappropriate requirements if you want to disagree with someone using requirements as a justification for higher prices. Wanting a scrapnel/biohazard proof cooling cell for meals (or whatever requirements makes it so expensive) is still a choice, not a necessity. Having an airworthy AF1 is also a choice, not a necessity... I think. I'll agree with you on this point but since it's all classified I don't think the real requirements can be evaluated. But based on the cost I thought it's reasonable to guess they are quite special, a normal cooling cell costs thousands not millions A normal cooling cell is also mass produced for use which drives the unit price down considerably. You can be pretty certain that stuff on air force one is one of a kind. Yeah, but why does it have to be? I am pretty sure other aircraft also have fridges in them. Why can't you use any of those? I highly doubt that they cost 23 million.
The president could fly commercial, but I think it's obvious why that is a bad idea. Air force one is just a 747 that has been customized to allow the president to work while on board. I agree with the general idea of government waste, but trying to save money on air force one that gets replaced every couple decades is just low hanging fruit.
|
On January 29 2018 01:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 01:36 Simberto wrote:On January 29 2018 01:29 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 29 2018 01:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On January 28 2018 23:40 micronesia wrote:On January 28 2018 18:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
They could also easily just eat canned meals but a presidents gotta eat good I guess That would make AF1 one of the least capable jets in the world by some measures... a strange thing to recommend. It would be quite cool if Trump said "I am going to make a personal sacrifice here to set the example of how we can safely save money" and opted for canned food but to expect him to do that is unreasonable. I mean for the emergency multiple week rations that require the huge coolers, not normal flight service. Saying it's expensive because it needs to meet high requirements is a bit silly, because then the question becomes is it really necessary to have such high requirements. You should probably have an idea what requirements are driving the price before you say it's silly to point to the requirements when justifying a higher price. The onus would be on you to point to unreasonable or inappropriate requirements if you want to disagree with someone using requirements as a justification for higher prices. Wanting a scrapnel/biohazard proof cooling cell for meals (or whatever requirements makes it so expensive) is still a choice, not a necessity. Having an airworthy AF1 is also a choice, not a necessity... I think. I'll agree with you on this point but since it's all classified I don't think the real requirements can be evaluated. But based on the cost I thought it's reasonable to guess they are quite special, a normal cooling cell costs thousands not millions A normal cooling cell is also mass produced for use which drives the unit price down considerably. You can be pretty certain that stuff on air force one is one of a kind. Yeah, but why does it have to be? I am pretty sure other aircraft also have fridges in them. Why can't you use any of those? I highly doubt that they cost 23 million. The president could fly commercial, but I think it's obvious why that is a bad idea. Air force one is just a 747 that has been customized to allow the president to work while on board. I agree with the general idea of government waste, but trying to save money on air force one that gets replaced every couple decades is just low hanging fruit.
True, there are always other things one could tackle. It just seems weird to spend 23 million on a fridge. Why not just take the same fridges as on commercial 747s ? I doubt that those cost 23 million.
|
The material and unit cost of the fridges is likely pretty low. The vast majority of the cost the development of the custom fridges and the development cost of producing them. Just think about the level of clearance someone would need to work on air force 1. Now apply that to producing the parts.
Not saying that 23 millions is a reasonable amount, but the costs of custom hardware is always going to be crazy high. I would also like to know how they came to that amount.
|
On January 29 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:
The material and unit cost of the fridges is likely pretty low. The vast majority of the cost the development of the custom fridges and the development cost of producing them. Just think about the level of clearance someone would need to work on air force 1. Now apply that to producing the parts.
Not saying that 23 millions is a reasonable amount, but the costs of custom hardware is always going to be crazy high. I would also like to know how they came to that amount.
Extended warranty probably.
|
On January 29 2018 02:45 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:
The material and unit cost of the fridges is likely pretty low. The vast majority of the cost the development of the custom fridges and the development cost of producing them. Just think about the level of clearance someone would need to work on air force 1. Now apply that to producing the parts.
Not saying that 23 millions is a reasonable amount, but the costs of custom hardware is always going to be crazy high. I would also like to know how they came to that amount. Extended warranty probably.
It's the service agreement that really hurts. You buy a piece of proprietary equipment that can only be repaired by the vendor and then have a guy working maintenance to repair stuff. Maintenance isn't permitted to fix anything because of the service agreements. Not sure if this applies to air force one, but we had 15-20 maintenance marines who couldn't even touch the gear if it broke.
|
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Ldqt1Iu.png)
LOL. Has water come out yet with the announcement that it's wet? Apparently this declaration came out during a recent interview with Piers Morgan. Only the craziest and blindest Trump supporters still think that he supports gender equity and fairness for women.
|
|
|
and again, he proves that he doesn't understand the difference between "weather" and "climate". Also the world is still getting warmer, nothing's changed. It's just that it's not going to get warmer all the places all the time. So it's more correct to call it climate change.
edit: Not sure why I even bothered that one. Doubt most people in here doesn't get that. It's Trump who needs to understand it -.-
|
That and in parts of the Arctic where the is no sunlight right now there is a record of ice, low levels of ice that is.
On ice caps specifically, NOAA, in its annual Arctic Report Card published in December, said the amount of the Arctic Ocean frozen over in the coldest points of winter set a record low in 2017 and is declining faster than at any time in the past 1,500 years.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
