|
On November 13 2024 12:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am certain that totally non sexiest trump voters would have been fine if there had been a recording of Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris bragging of grabbing young men by the cock that had resurfaced during their respective campaigns.
I mean…
Double standards like these are ubiquitous in politics. They had a problem with Clinton and Monica Lewinsky but not Stormy Daniels. It has little to do with Clinton being a white man from Arkansas.
|
On November 13 2024 11:48 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 10:34 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 12 2024 23:00 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 22:11 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 21:35 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - I think your perception of that may be skewed by the nature of this forum (or rather just politics thread), which is left leaning and quite frankly few bans away from becoming echo chamber.
Italic - yes and I stand by it. I am not saying that Republicans are free of this issue, I do however think that the scale of it is much smaller on their side. (coincidently I think that dropping groomer/pedophiles rhetoric, helped Republicans immensely) They didn't really drop it though, it's still a prominent part of their antitrans messaging. Democrats want men in your daughter's locker room and so on.The scale of it happening is surprisingly comparable, at least it was surprising to me I hadn't really thought about it in detail before this night and it's shocking how easy it is to map out. There's "woke" which is probably the main one which goes to extremes like "groomer" but then you also have "communist" and so on. As far as I can see the main difference is that "woke" and "communist" aren't really insulting in the same way that "racist" and "fascist" are, but ultimately that makes a lot of sense morally so it probably won't change.On November 12 2024 21:35 Razyda wrote:
Bolded 2 - I think this is were you are mistaken. There is no such thing as "systemic role", simply because nothing in nature stays stagnant, they may have acted like that in the past, but that doesnt mean that it will stay like that forever. I think Covid significantly speed up this process for Democrats because it showed them how much power they have and how easy it is to get rid of dissent. I dont think this is something you want government to learn.
I think it's quite naive to perceive that politicians used to not understand how power works and now they do so something is going to change. They knew what they were doing before and they know what they're doing now, they're not idiots. You live in a country that has a long history of repression of socialism, both nationally and internationally. Democrats and republicans have known how to get rid of dissent for as long as they've been part of that system. Democrats weren't not doing much out of incompetence or ignorance, they were not doing much out of ideology. They still have the same ideology, so it makes sense to me to expect more of the same type of governance from them in the future. Bolded - from what I've seen it dropped quite a lot after beer thingy and Walmart. Although I think you are correct in describing it as their antitrans messaging, because it seems that at the same time pro trans messaging also got toned down. Italic - I agree with woke although not a communist with latter being nowhere as prominent as Fascist/Nazi. Also woke used to be something to be proud of, while Nazi not so much. Bolded 2 - By "understanding how much power they have" I meant more level of compliance, rather than mechanics of the law (if that makes sense). On November 12 2024 18:47 KwarK wrote:On November 12 2024 12:22 BlackJack wrote:On November 12 2024 12:00 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 11:18 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 07:30 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
You don't have to answer if you don't want to but I'm curious how you square not giving too much power to one individual and being conservative I don't mind answering. I think part of the problems we have, not only on this forum but overall, lays in the fact that people trying to label everyone/everything. In my case people read my posts against Democrats/liberals and it seems decided that I must be republican/conservative. It is sort of "you are either with us or against us" sort of thinking, which I am not a fan of to be honest. Am I conservative? Hell no. Do I have some conservative values? Yes of course, and I think everyone has some (I happened to think that there cant be a society without some sort of conservative values - thinking of conservatism a bit as of tradition - it would be just bunch of people leaving in the same area) Of course I have also some liberal values (probably even more), I also happened to believe that pure conservatism is natural enemy of progress, by the very definition. My conclusion is that every human being should be some mix of the 2. I would agree that humans naturally have mixed politics, not really that the mix is between liberalism and conservatism as those two ideologies are extremely similar to each other  If we agree that every human is a mix, then surely when someone is called a conservative we are asserting that they side more with conservatives than they do with the other groups, which in your case appears to be true, rather than that they agree with everything conservatives have ever said. It doesn't seem very damaging to be doing that. And in my case it wouldn't be a with us or against us, as (you may not know this actually) I very much hate liberals. bolded - Is it though? even recently I specified that I am not supporting Trump, I am in opposition to Democrats. This are 2 very different things. For all Nazi, fascist, dictator talk I consider Trump ability to become a dictator at the same level as his ability to teleport, or resurrecting people (excluding situations in which he needs votes and read Gogol - where i find latter highly improbable). I am in agreement with John Oliver that Trump is like "A Hamster In An Attack Helicopter" although I think this is worst case scenario. What I disagree with him is that this time it will be different because he will have advisors. Advisors? Really? are we still talking about Trump? To follow someone advice you have to accept the fact that they know better than you... On the other side are Democrats. I think they are way more dangerous. It is always: "to protect x we take away a bit of this right", "to protect y we take a bit of this right" and so on. Issue with this is that rights are finite and government sure as hell wont be happily returning powers it once acquired (shouldn't Patriot Act be temporary? how is that going?). I believe what happened during Covid under Democrats was straight up authoritarian and plain awful. I also suspect that if Musk didnt bought Twitter and if Democrats would won this election US would be for all means and purposes one party state with Republicans in perpetual minority (cant obviously prove that, but if Democrats hold control of social media like they did during Covid, I am not sure how Republicans could win) On balance Trump may do some bad, or hopefully something good. Democrats on the other hand I dont see doing anything good. On the bolded part, yeah I do think so, really. I think that the way you frame political clashes shows a sense of belonging. For example when you were defending BJ earlier in the US thread, you explained that democrats are pushing away people who have slight disagreements with them and that's costing them votes and election, every critique is heresy and they're to blame if those heretics start voting for republicans. This analysis doesn't work as a neutral one, as Republicans are doing the exact same thing, the Democrats, the enemies, are pedophiles and groomers, enemies of the nation, and the people who have slight disagreements are RINOs and might as well be enemies. We even have an example on this forum as KwarK on this topic functions essentially as a Democrat. I think that you're more sensitive to the former than to the latter because you don't perceive yourself as a target of the latter. This is not even close to the same scale. Pretty much anyone with a Trump flag in their lawn is presumed to be a racist misogynist fascist by a large portion of Democrats. The amount of Republicans that see a Harris flag and think “they must molest children” is very small in comparison. Social media is filled with leftists posting on social media asking anyone that voted for Trump to cut ties with them and posts like “we can agree to disagree but not when it comes to wanting to enslave people” and nonsense like that. People with a Trump flag are racists. The presumption is reasonable. At least I dont have to undermine point Nebuchad is making . On November 12 2024 19:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 12 2024 13:14 BlackJack wrote:
You’re missing the crucial different that the fringe conspiracies of the cabal of baby eating pedophiles doesn’t include your average Dem voter. Nobody thinks Kwark is part of the cabal. Whereas everyone on the left thinks Trump voters are racist, misogynist fascists and you don’t even have to travel off this site for evidence of that. This is true insofar as 'everyone on the left' (read - some, or charitably 'most' people with progressive / inclusive ideology) thinks 'Trump voters' (read - not exclusively, but as part of a society that has issues with racism and sexism) are "racist, mysoginist fascists' (read - If you can accept that a society has widespread issues with racism and sexism then someone being racist or sexist is the default and reasonable to expect of someone). I expect you're racist and sexist - that's the default. I don't know why you're compelled to try protect trump supporters from the same criticism.Trump's only ever won the presidency when competing against women. I don't think that's wrong and I don't think it's the only reason, but I do think it's foolish to loudly shout that trump voters aren't sexist when they probably are. Don't worry, they're not special and unique flowers, you don't need to protect all... 74 million? of them. There's more than 74 million sexist people in the US. Bolded - no it is not default, it is insane. If starting point of any discussion is based on that, then there is no real discussion to be had. If you start with such a premise then obviously any disagreement can be explained as proof of starting premise. More so any argument has less weight when coming from someone you think of as such, because even if their argument is correct you can automatically think "thats the trickery which gets you to dark side". If more people have default like you then no wonder left and right cant talk to each other. If it's not the default, are you prepared to argue that our countries are not racist or sexist anymore? If so, when did we clear those bars? It isn't difficult at all to go back not very long ago (historically) and find loads of examples of racism and sexism and homophobia etc. It's also easy to find modern examples that may allude to existing modern systemic sexism and racism. I find it harder to find examples of nationwide purity and egalitarianism. That is why I say it is the default. Not because people are naturally horrible, but because the society we grew up in was racist and sexist and some of that is still 'normal' Bolded - if you take flawed assumption as a base you will get to flawed conclusions by default. While it may come as a shock to you, the simple truth is, that yes "people are naturally horrible", does that mean that people are racists? No it doesn't, at all. You may disagree with statement that "people are naturally horrible", but it is simple denial. Let me explain to you history of human race on a simple QA: Do you know why Germans committed atrocities they committed in doom camps? Now answer to this is so simple, that it is astonishing. (and it comes from someone who had mandatory class trip to doom camp at age 10): BECAUSE THEY COULD and now my liberal friend, deal with this aswer.
In the statement "Not because people are horrible" does it indicate I believe no people can be horrible? No, it does not. I was discarding it as the sole explanation in that case. People can be horrible. People can be racist. Not all people that are racist are horrible. They're different. Moving on.
For this conversation to continue, answer these questions:
Do you believe that our societies (US and Canada) do not have deeply rooted sexist and racist history that form large parts of our countries founding and development so far?
In the event that you DO NOT believe our societies are fundamentally sexist and racist, can you point to the time in history where we passed that bar and became egalitarian societies?
|
On November 13 2024 12:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 10:26 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 12 2024 20:37 BlackJack wrote:On November 12 2024 19:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 12 2024 13:14 BlackJack wrote:
You’re missing the crucial different that the fringe conspiracies of the cabal of baby eating pedophiles doesn’t include your average Dem voter. Nobody thinks Kwark is part of the cabal. Whereas everyone on the left thinks Trump voters are racist, misogynist fascists and you don’t even have to travel off this site for evidence of that. This is true insofar as 'everyone on the left' (read - some, or charitably 'most' people with progressive / inclusive ideology) thinks 'Trump voters' (read - not exclusively, but as part of a society that has issues with racism and sexism) are "racist, mysoginist fascists' (read - If you can accept that a society has widespread issues with racism and sexism then someone being racist or sexist is the default and reasonable to expect of someone). I expect you're racist and sexist - that's the default. I don't know why you're compelled to try protect trump supporters from the same criticism. Trump's only ever won the presidency when competing against women. I don't think that's wrong and I don't think it's the only reason, but I do think it's foolish to loudly shout that trump voters aren't sexist when they probably are. Don't worry, they're not special and unique flowers, you don't need to protect all... 74 million? of them. There's more than 74 million sexist people in the US. So you would consider yourself a racist and a sexist? Racist and sexist yes. A racist and a sexist no. You'll note I applied the same distinction to you. Racism against first nations people is common where I am and I'm not immune to that. When interacting with a first nations person for the first time my guard will typically be up, because they tend to be displaced and substance-abusing. It's wrong of me and racist of me to discriminate based on their race - and while I expect the issue is a cultural/social one not a biological/physical one (I.E. I don't think they're an 'inferior race') I still should just fucking do better. For the most part I do my best, but imo that's what being 'a progressive' is - trying to notice and correct for your own social biases and biases toward you. Racism/sexism or being racist/sexist doesn't begin at owning a confederate flag and pining for the good ol' days, it starts at seeing a woman in a leadership position and unconsciously thinking she's there because of diversity hire or some other caveat, or seeing that the majority of richest people in the US are white men and that's just the natural order. I don’t even disagree with you to the extend that I think everyone has prejudices whether over or subconscious. But it doesn’t really have anything to do with my point. When Kwark and MP call Trump voters racist they aren’t using the word in the way you are using it and they are absolutely not applying it to themselves the way you are.
Fair. I objected at your absolutist 'everyone on the left' and the specifics therein. To be fair to you though, your prior post was less absolute - I imagine you're just frustrated at MP and Kwark and I can respect that.
|
Elon is now boss of the D.O.G.E.
A new agency of government that should make government more efficiant.
My picks for his Axe:
- Axe NASA
- Axe public transport
- Axe all publicly funded research in sectors of his economic interest
Orders:
The DOGE needs to buy Tesla EVs, so all government employees can go to work faster.
|
On November 13 2024 18:18 KT_Elwood wrote:
Elon is now boss of the D.O.G.E.
A new agency of government that should make government more efficiant.
My picks for his Axe:
- Axe NASA
- Axe public transport
- Axe all publicly funded research in sectors of his economic interest
Orders:
The DOGE needs to buy Tesla EVs, so all government employees can go to work faster.
Why on Earth would he axe NASA?
Aren't they his biggest customer?
They are literally a pipeline (one of the many) that directs your tax money into his pocket.
|
Eliminate the middle man.
|
United States42490 Posts
On November 13 2024 18:18 KT_Elwood wrote:
Elon is now boss of the D.O.G.E.
A new agency of government that should make government more efficiant.
My picks for his Axe:
- Axe NASA
- Axe public transport
- Axe all publicly funded research in sectors of his economic interest
Orders:
The DOGE needs to buy Tesla EVs, so all government employees can go to work faster.
George Orwell famously wrote "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.". He was mistaken. It should have been "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a clown shoe stamping on a human face— forever.".
|
On November 13 2024 20:47 Velr wrote:
Eliminate the middle man.
NASA isn't the middle man, though. They are literally the buyer of rockets. If you nix NASA there's nobody else who will buy your rockets. It doesn't make any sense.
Agencies Musk will (want to) get rid of, for himself and for Trump:
- the SEC
- the FTC
- the FEC
- the CPSC
- DoJ Antitrust Division
- DoJ Tax Division
- DoJ Office on Violence Against Women
- most of the Department of Treasury, in particular anything related to oversight or tax enforcement.
- USPTO (fuck patents, copyrights and everything)
- FEMA
- the entirety of the Department of Transportation (unchain the terror of the driverless Teslas, also fully deregulate drones and aircars)
- most of the Department of the Interior, but especially anything that limits building anything anywhere, and also obviously the Indian Arts and Craft Board (BIA, BLM, BSEE, Fish & Wildlife Service, NPS, OSMRE, USGS)
And then stuff he will suggest to nix just because he can:
- DoJ Civil Rights Division
- the entirety of the USDA, but especially anything to do with Forestry, National Parks or Safety (e.g. NRCS, FNS, FSIS, USFS)
- the entirety of the Department of Education
- the entirety of the Department of Labor
- the entirety of the Department of Veteran Affairs
- the CDC
- the FDA
- the Indian Health Service (I just found this in a list of government agencies and services and it is 100% a goner)
- the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- CISA
- the entirety of the Department of Housing
- anything to do with civll rights (CCR, EEOC, ...)
- NOAA
- ENRD
- IRS
- ATF
- anything in the state department that whiffs of spending money abroad to make the world more stable, rather than promoting the US of A, e.g. the Global Engagement Center, or the Office of International Religious Freedom)
|
On November 13 2024 21:27 Acrofales wrote:NASA isn't the middle man, though. They are literally the buyer of rockets. If you nix NASA there's nobody else who will buy your rockets. It doesn't make any sense. Agencies Musk will (want to) get rid of, for himself and for Trump: - the SEC - the FTC - the FEC - the CPSC - DoJ Antitrust Division - DoJ Tax Division - DoJ Office on Violence Against Women - most of the Department of Treasury, in particular anything related to oversight or tax enforcement. - USPTO (fuck patents, copyrights and everything) - FEMA - the entirety of the Department of Transportation (unchain the terror of the driverless Teslas, also fully deregulate drones and aircars) - most of the Department of the Interior, but especially anything that limits building anything anywhere, and also obviously the Indian Arts and Craft Board (BIA, BLM, BSEE, Fish & Wildlife Service, NPS, OSMRE, USGS) And then stuff he will suggest to nix just because he can: - DoJ Civil Rights Division - the entirety of the USDA, but especially anything to do with Forestry, National Parks or Safety (e.g. NRCS, FNS, FSIS, USFS) - the entirety of the Department of Education - the entirety of the Department of Labor - the entirety of the Department of Veteran Affairs - the CDC - the FDA - the Indian Health Service (I just found this in a list of government agencies and services and it is 100% a goner) - the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration - CISA - the entirety of the Department of Housing - anything to do with civll rights (CCR, EEOC, ...) - NOAA - ENRD - IRS - ATF - anything in the state department that whiffs of spending money abroad to make the world more stable, rather than promoting the US of A, e.g. the Global Engagement Center, or the Office of International Religious Freedom)
It would take years to get rid of this stuff in a way that doesn't immediately and severely affect the US economy.
You can't just destroy regulation when it comes to any product that is referred to in trade deals etc. or you have to start altering deals and taking way less favorable conditions.
Trump may be isolationist, but he isn't going to put a stop to any and all trade.
|
United States42490 Posts
On November 13 2024 21:27 Acrofales wrote:NASA isn't the middle man, though. They are literally the buyer of rockets. If you nix NASA there's nobody else who will buy your rockets. It doesn't make any sense. Agencies Musk will (want to) get rid of, for himself and for Trump: - the SEC - the FTC - the FEC - the CPSC - DoJ Antitrust Division - DoJ Tax Division - DoJ Office on Violence Against Women - most of the Department of Treasury, in particular anything related to oversight or tax enforcement. - USPTO (fuck patents, copyrights and everything) - FEMA - the entirety of the Department of Transportation (unchain the terror of the driverless Teslas, also fully deregulate drones and aircars) - most of the Department of the Interior, but especially anything that limits building anything anywhere, and also obviously the Indian Arts and Craft Board (BIA, BLM, BSEE, Fish & Wildlife Service, NPS, OSMRE, USGS) And then stuff he will suggest to nix just because he can: - DoJ Civil Rights Division - the entirety of the USDA, but especially anything to do with Forestry, National Parks or Safety (e.g. NRCS, FNS, FSIS, USFS) - the entirety of the Department of Education - the entirety of the Department of Labor - the entirety of the Department of Veteran Affairs - the CDC - the FDA - the Indian Health Service (I just found this in a list of government agencies and services and it is 100% a goner) - the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration - CISA - the entirety of the Department of Housing - anything to do with civll rights (CCR, EEOC, ...) - NOAA - ENRD - IRS - ATF - anything in the state department that whiffs of spending money abroad to make the world more stable, rather than promoting the US of A, e.g. the Global Engagement Center, or the Office of International Religious Freedom)
Musk recently X'd again reminding everyone that Fauci's pronouns are prosecute/Fauci.
Prosecute would prefer that you instead write
Agencies Musk will (want to) get rid of, for himFauciself and for Trump:
And then stuff heprosecute will suggest to nix just because heprosecute can:
Prosecute may be a moron but that's really Fauci's choice.
|
On November 13 2024 12:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 12:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am certain that totally non sexiest trump voters would have been fine if there had been a recording of Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris bragging of grabbing young men by the cock that had resurfaced during their respective campaigns.
I mean… Double standards like these are ubiquitous in politics. They had a problem with Clinton and Monica Lewinsky but not Stormy Daniels. It has little to do with Clinton being a white man from Arkansas.
Well. Double standards like that are ubiquitous in society. If a man loses his shit and shouts he has authority, if a woman loses her shot and shouts she is hysterical and a nutcase. Women are held to a standard that is sooo much higher than men.
|
On November 13 2024 21:27 Acrofales wrote:NASA isn't the middle man, though. They are literally the buyer of rockets. If you nix NASA there's nobody else who will buy your rockets. It doesn't make any sense.
Just to elaborate what i meant:
Old: Nasa gets goverment money to buy rockets and stuff from Space X (and it's competitors) to do Nasa stuff.
New: Goverment pays Space X for everything and no one else if Space X doesn't want to.
It would be just one step further in the privatisation of space (programs). It's also obviously a horrible idea.
|
On November 13 2024 22:22 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 21:27 Acrofales wrote:On November 13 2024 20:47 Velr wrote:
Eliminate the middle man. NASA isn't the middle man, though. They are literally the buyer of rockets. If you nix NASA there's nobody else who will buy your rockets. It doesn't make any sense. Just to elaborate what i meant: Old: Nasa gets goverment money to buy rockets and stuff from Space X (and it's competitors) to do Nasa stuff. New: Goverment pays Space X for everything and no one else if Space X doesn't want to. It would be just one step further in the privatisation of space (programs). It's also obviously a horrible idea.
SpaceX would soon regret that if it happened.
Imagine Musk's face when his expenditure on research goes up by 60000% and most of it doesn't promise to contribute to a usable product for the next 50 years.
The shit NASA needs to do is expensive and doesn't have immediate benefits, but if no-one was doing any of that shit, we wouldn't need Musk's tech anyway.
|
Praise SpaceX however much you want for its technological advancements, there's one thing that's undeniable: SpaceX is nothing without NASA.
|
Oh, Space X would just be like "we are not interested in this contract". I would fully expect Space X to just start "winning" every profitable contract due to Musks connections while others would be up for grabs.
Compared to what they did/told during the campaign, this wouldn't be a stretch.
|
On November 13 2024 12:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 12:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am certain that totally non sexiest trump voters would have been fine if there had been a recording of Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris bragging of grabbing young men by the cock that had resurfaced during their respective campaigns.
I mean… Double standards like these are ubiquitous in politics. They had a problem with Clinton and Monica Lewinsky but not Stormy Daniels. It has little to do with Clinton being a white man from Arkansas.
Clinton is smooth, polite, and diplomatic. One rather wants to agree with him. Trump is rude, hyperbolic, direct, confrontational and famous for screaming "you're fired". One can sorta see why Trump has so many enemies who will use any set of facts to bring him down.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau beat his wife repeatedly and the Canadian public knew it. He got re elected 48578 times. Today, the largest % of Canadians view P.E.T. as Canada's greatest PM. Everyone knows Pierre beat his wife Maggy repeatedly. Canadians do not care. So this is not just a USA-only or an "only in crazy 2024" thing.
The whole Trump/Daniels thing is just a side-show entertainment story.
Tying this back to Elon Musk. If he is seen to improve the lives of Americans very few will care much at all about his personal life. As it should be ... and as it always has been.
|
On November 13 2024 21:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 21:27 Acrofales wrote:On November 13 2024 20:47 Velr wrote:
Eliminate the middle man. NASA isn't the middle man, though. They are literally the buyer of rockets. If you nix NASA there's nobody else who will buy your rockets. It doesn't make any sense. Agencies Musk will (want to) get rid of, for himself and for Trump: - the SEC - the FTC - the FEC - the CPSC - DoJ Antitrust Division - DoJ Tax Division - DoJ Office on Violence Against Women - most of the Department of Treasury, in particular anything related to oversight or tax enforcement. - USPTO (fuck patents, copyrights and everything) - FEMA - the entirety of the Department of Transportation (unchain the terror of the driverless Teslas, also fully deregulate drones and aircars) - most of the Department of the Interior, but especially anything that limits building anything anywhere, and also obviously the Indian Arts and Craft Board (BIA, BLM, BSEE, Fish & Wildlife Service, NPS, OSMRE, USGS) And then stuff he will suggest to nix just because he can: - DoJ Civil Rights Division - the entirety of the USDA, but especially anything to do with Forestry, National Parks or Safety (e.g. NRCS, FNS, FSIS, USFS) - the entirety of the Department of Education - the entirety of the Department of Labor - the entirety of the Department of Veteran Affairs - the CDC - the FDA - the Indian Health Service (I just found this in a list of government agencies and services and it is 100% a goner) - the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration - CISA - the entirety of the Department of Housing - anything to do with civll rights (CCR, EEOC, ...) - NOAA - ENRD - IRS - ATF - anything in the state department that whiffs of spending money abroad to make the world more stable, rather than promoting the US of A, e.g. the Global Engagement Center, or the Office of International Religious Freedom) It would take years to get rid of this stuff in a way that doesn't immediately and severely affect the US economy. You can't just destroy regulation when it comes to any product that is referred to in trade deals etc. or you have to start altering deals and taking way less favorable conditions. Trump may be isolationist, but he isn't going to put a stop to any and all trade.
That is exactly the kind of long-term thinking we do not need in our Department of Government Efficiency. Our motto is move fast and break stuff for a reason.
|
On November 13 2024 22:22 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 21:27 Acrofales wrote:On November 13 2024 20:47 Velr wrote:
Eliminate the middle man. NASA isn't the middle man, though. They are literally the buyer of rockets. If you nix NASA there's nobody else who will buy your rockets. It doesn't make any sense. Just to elaborate what i meant: Old: Nasa gets goverment money to buy rockets and stuff from Space X (and it's competitors) to do Nasa stuff. New: Goverment pays Space X for everything and no one else if Space X doesn't want to. It would be just one step further in the privatisation of space (programs). It's also obviously a horrible idea.
I stand corrected. I was stuck in Big Government thinking and respect for international treaties. You are 100% right.
NASA will be abolished and its functions taken over by the military. Any sciency stuff can be done by private institutions or not at all. We spent billions on the James Webb telescope, and what for? Pretty pictures? I bet Grok can draw prettier ones at a fraction of the cost.
Yes, short-term SpaceX will no doubt take a hit as there are no more cushy astronaut trips to the ISS and no more launches of wasteful exploration crafts to go and fuck about around Europa (note to self, rename to America or gtfo) or Titan. SpaceX will decide the best course to take to send manned missions to Mars, and get it done. Mid and long term, the renewed space race between China and the US to arm NEO with nukes and jewish space lazorz will offer a plethora of opportunities for private enterpriseSpaceX.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
Man maybe Musk is a super human if he can be a government Tsar, CEO of multiple companies and be single handedly fathering an entire new race of Musklings…
Massive potential conflicts of interest here. Surely the ‘you didn’t care about his politics before’ crowd have to concede that this is a pretty legitimate area of concern now right?
I’ll reserve judgement, maybe he does some good governance. Maybe he doesn’t put in the energy and ultimately doesn’t leverage this position all that much. Maybe it’s an absolute clusterfuck of bad policies, mixed with ones that directly benefit Musk
I would put my money on some outcomes being more likely than others, put it that way.
|
No one cared about Trump putting his family into white house positions. Why would they care when it's Elon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
