• Moose
  • Announcements

    • Dirktator

      Please help us for July   06/30/2017

      This month we're hoping for a little bit of a boost this month or next, in addition to covering the regular bills, we could benefit from some hardware upgrades. STEX Collector's Set gifts can now be sent to you via digital download as well as regular mail if you wish! Every donation dollar goes toward keeping Simtropolis online and humming along. Your contribution counts! Hardware Upgrades As our website community software improves with more and more features, and as we bolt on additional features such as chat, the increased load to handle all these new toys is taking the server a bit to task. You may have noticed that we'd been forced to temporarily disable the chat as we worked out allocating resources for more optimal performance. Following this, we've applied a number of 'soft' changes such as caching options and experimented with server configurations (nginx as proxy, for example), so the hardware aspect is also an area we'd like to focus on. The last time we upgraded hardware was back in 2012, prior to the release of SC13. Your contribution means a lot! Your donation will go toward helping us to 1.) migrate to a newer server or 2.) at least get some ram/cpu/storage updates and any other infrastructure hardware or services. Donate and Get a Gift or Donate Any Amount Thanks so much! - Dirktator & The Admins
BLANKBLANK

President Donald Trump and his Administration

491 posts in this topic

Truly an interesting press conference by Mr Trump earlier today. I am looking forward to many more of these; and not least the White House Correspondents' Dinner!

metarvo likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, krbe said:

Truly an interesting press conference by Mr Trump earlier today. I am looking forward to many more of these; and not least the White House Correspondents' Dinner!

They certainly make life interesting our version of Mr Trump was called Rob Muldoon (Sir Rob in his final years) and was the 31st Prime Minister of New Zealand from 1975 to 1984 (National Party), he possibly would have served another term as Prime Minister but on the 14 June 1984 while extremely drunk announced a snap election to take place the next month it naturally ended up being called the  "schnapps election" and was won by the Labour Party.

Fantozzi and matias93 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39010374

Man on mission to destroy EPA now in charge of it.

 

The Republican senators and representatives won't impeach The D'ump. This means the US government has become a tyranny uncaring to laws or ethics. Tyrannies survive through propaganda and police states. Without authoritarianism, tyrannies don't last long.

 

The revolution will be televised, retweeted, status updated, and shared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

Man on mission to destroy EPA now in charge of it.

When was it impeachable to think that a US agency was a misappropriation of government power?

I think the EPA is a joke, but prefer it to none at all. I do think the Dept. of Education is a bad idea that needs to be abolished. Nowhere do I find that opposition to a government agency makes one unfit for government office. Is that a law somewhere that you need to agree with the government to work in it? Isn't that basically how totalitarian governments operate? All dissent and disagreement with the current MO must be suppressed to preserve the state; dissidents are punished. Although I think the EPA is a necessary part of government, I think the work they currently do is essentially worthless and I do not support the idea that it is impeachable or treasonous to think that there are areas where the Federal Government has overstepped its powers.

Isn't that the entire idea of Libertarianism? Would Gary Johnson or Ron Paul be immediately impeachable because of his desire to reduce the number of operating government agencies and removing or reducing governmental power and oversight over the state legislatures?

That is not to dismiss that there are some serious concerns, environmentally, if we were to relegate all EPA-esque control to the states. Some have clearly detrimental plans for the environment, but I haven't yet seen where in the law it is illegal to desire that certain parts of the government are unnecessary or out stepping their bounds.

metarvo likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cabinet nomination isn't an impeachable offense. Trump has already committed a handful or so. This is instead proof that the Republicans have stopped opposing The D'ump and just became a rubber stamp. This means they won't impeach Il Donce. El Presidente is a "media mogul" who attacks opposition and calls all media outlets in disagreement "the enemy to the American people." This is some early stage dictator shtuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

El Presidente is a "media mogul" who attacks opposition and calls all media outlets in disagreement "the enemy to the American people."

FDR, Johnson, and Nixon are on the line. They'd like to speak to you.

4 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

This is instead proof that the Republicans have stopped opposing The D'ump and just became a rubber stamp.

This happened the moment they realize that he not only won the White House, but also helped them keep both the House and the Senate. He basically holds all the cards, politically speaking. He's going to have to make the House screw up royally if the Democrats are going to make headway on that arena, because House Reps outran Trump in this election essentially everywhere, and the senate races were not particularly cut and dried for the Dems either.

I'm not saying that it's good or bad one way or the other, but it's not like the Democratic Congress rubber stamping Obama's initiatives was a particularly good thing either. As a supporter of universal health care, I was very appalled at the actual details about Obamacare, however, as well as the fact that they did not ask a single Republican for input (forget whether they would have voted for it or not; the administration didn't even ask).

I don't think Universal Health Care is a right. I do think it's a responsibility of a government that taxes its people however. There is a distinct difference.

Most of the impeachable offenses you list aren't exactly impeachable offenses, nor are the "possible" ones exactly new. None of these things has gotten a president impeached before, and thanks to Clinton you can't use either prior "crimes" nor supposed conflicts of interest as a reason to impeach the president. Attacking the media, provided no real legislation proceeds from it that actually stymies the media's ability to publish, isn't impeachable either, nor is (verbally) attacking the judiciary, as uncouth and counterproductive as that might be. Cue Andrew Jackson, and Franklin Roosevelt. Also Theodore Roosevelt. Andrew Jackson actually directly ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court. I'll admit times were different then, and Congress was unlikely to be sympathetic to such a ruling, but the point remains that there are rules and then there's precedent.

Republicans (and Democrats) didn't like FDR winning 4 presidential elections, after every other president had decided that 2 was enough (well, except for TR but that's another story). What did they do?

They changed the laws. This is what is necessary. You can't simply complain because it looks bad and hasn't been done before. If you want real change, you change the laws. It's not the job of the courts. The courts are to rule on the laws, and uphold the laws that are in accordance with the constitution. Not to set precedent. Not to change laws. Not to enact laws. If you want the country to be different, you elect people that you trust to carry out your mandate, and have them change the laws. Or move for a government initiative process and get the people to hold an initiative ballot and have a popular vote on the law.

Complaining that there are precedents not being followed doesn't count for impeachment, as much as we might like it to. Clear violation of the laws and disregard for constitutional powers is what you need to catch Trump on, but because Trump is not a lawyer, the laws he signs are likely to be triple checked for both legal precedent and constitutional standing. A number of lawyers, particularly one of the chief advisors to Clinton, have stated that the immigration "ban"/moratorium on refugees that Trump issued is well within his constitutional limits, and is actually less extreme than many such orders carried out by presidents before him. You may not like the ban, and you don't have to, but nothing about it or anything else that Trump has done since entering office (and this is the timeline we need to use, remember) has warranted the claim of an impeachable offense.

What worse is that the low hanging fruit, like drugs, alcohol, bribery, and/or infidelity are likely ruled out for Trump. He doesn't drink, doesn't smoke or do drugs, has enough money to be able to refrain from bribery at least whilst in office, and is probably got his head screwed on straight enough to stick to his wife for the time being. You can think Trump as dumb as you want, but the guy had enough smart people around him to win the presidency (where it mattered), and I think it would be remiss to assume the same going forward.

If you like, the advice to never underestimate your adversary is exceptionally good advice, particularly in this case. I suggest we not continue to do so, if we would like to cease being surprised at the things he does. The success or failure of Trump's opposition will rest on this; I'm secretly hoping they continue to do this, because I haven't been disappointed yet, but if you are smart, you will realize that he is not the bozo he appears to be. Maybe then you will be able to confront him on a level playing field, because right now he holds all the cards.

metarvo likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2016 at 6:35 PM, MilitantRadical said:

You're still spouting this talking point but it's just not true. Those disclaimers were placed on Trump's campaign by the media with distortions or oversimplifications of things he said. You act as if every speech he gave was against these groups when it wasn't. Whether he meant it or not, Trump often spoke of his campaign being a big tent open for everyone and openly announced his love of every group on your list - except maybe scientists. He especially attempted to reach out to LGBTQ people and the poor.

Well, putting Mike Pence (who openly fights LGBT rights) and a bunch of Wall Street sharks when he sides with the common man doesn't exactly send a good vibe. Of course the media puts its spin on it, as it's always done, but what are people supposed to think? Also, opposing science? What for? I want to give Trump a big chance, I may well agree with him on a few key policies, and I tentatively believe he may well be better than Clinton, but I can think for myself, beyond party lines (I refuse to identify as either liberal or conservative, and takes sides just because it's the party I root for) and even dismissing media bias, right now it looks rather messy - his uncensored press conference was an absolute mess, no offence, and he's spending more time at his golf resort than draining the swamp. Perhaps Congress passes some useful legislation, and even if you disagree with the GOP, it helps that all branches of government go one way - but I'm sorry, Trump simply doesn't look very presidential in and of himself, and I fear we may well be bracing for serious disappointment. Maybe it's just a messy spell from a party that was not predicted to win - I really hope it is.

Though, to his credit, the media doesn't exactly give him much of a chance either. It really doesn't help that Trump voters constantly get called idiots, etc. by holier-than-thou liberals, I mean I'm sure some of his voters are, but you can say the same of Clinton and pretty much every other candidate. Honestly, right now the saddest thing is that there's further polarization going on on both sides, when really the right should realise Trump isn't perfect and the left should stop giving into hysteria. 

Also, off topic, perhaps, but yeah climatology itself tends to be a scientific topic, and yep, I'm sure there are industries and lobbies with agendas that hope to profit on climate change, but the same can be said of the oil industry, or coal mines, and the like. My stance is that instead of denying the obvious and hind behind shady conspiracies that probably aren't even a thing, people should probably work together to find solutions and compromises. I think that's what we're missing here - liberals, conservatives, both in Congress and grassroot activists need to stop the hysteria, and compromise. It's chaotic right now, and people will have to forgive that neither Trump nor the American institutions really inspire a lot of confidence right now - and to me further polarization only seems to make matters far worse.

What really saddens me now is how a once united nation is once again split apart at the middle, and focusing on the divisions rather than those values that you'd hope America and the Western world as a whole shares. But I'm not only blaming Trump, far from it, and I refuse to give into brainless Trump bashing - that's too easy and goes nowhere. The media, liberals did play a big part, and so did the congressmen that lurk in the swamp. Just my two pence anyway (so witty)
 

nos.17, APSMS and matias93 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2017 at 11:03 PM, krbe said:

Truly an interesting press conference by Mr Trump earlier today. I am looking forward to many more of these; and not least the White House Correspondents' Dinner!

Imagine my disappointment.

OcramsRzr and APSMS like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The axis of evil - you can draw them in your atlas like constellations.

Trump - Erdogan - Putin

always demanding more power as if they had an insatiable hunger for power. They occupy media while people are starving, while people are thirsty.

Isn't it strange that those noughts are so demanding? Not even the pope is demanding as much from catholics as those rulers are demanding from their people.

I thought I'm voting for a guide, for a leader, for someone to watch over me. Instead I'm always voting for a martinet, a schoolmaster or a bailiff.

To tell the people 'I will serve you' and then slowly, slowly demanding their people and soon the people serve him/her instead. How can it be this always works? And no one wonders - wait a minute - who's serving whom in this game?

The axis of evil - I get the impression it's mounted on the car, me!; I'm driving.

 

If someone asks for more power - always ask first: why do you need it? Why is the power you have not enough to make things work? Is power a solution to the problems of the world?

Me, do I need more power to get things done? Do I need to be almighty to solve problems? Is it knowledge or power that I need to fix the computer or the TV?

What is really needed to make world better? Do you solve hunger with power?

Like if your child asks you for money- isn't your first question: what do you need it for?

So isn't this question valid on power?

All this power to build up a wall. Is this a good use of this power? Would you spend your own money on building a wall around your house? Or would you - eventually - think of other possibilities to spend it? Alternstives? Wouldn't this be the more natural behavior - weighing up in your family: on what should we spent the money first?

Why so different on power? Why shouldn't there be a choice on power too?

Do you think about on which projects you spent your power? Or do you think it is unlimited - like the current from the plug socket. There is plenty enough power - why should I think about, if it may be wasted. 

Making a war on media - what will be the benefits for the people going to work each day, trying to get along? Is this energy they can plug in their daily lifes and have it brightened up? Is this well invested power?

Power wasted for ego. More power and more power. So demanding - like underbreded children they are. Not men enough to deny allurement. That's all I can see while the axis of evil's turning. 

OcramsRzr likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

If someone asks for more power - always ask first: why do you need it? Why is the power you have not enough to make things work? Is power a solution to the problems of the world?

It's an interesting point. Consider this, though:

There are 4000 staff in the White House that comprise Donald Trump's Cabinet. 1200 of these positions have to be confirmed by Congress. As of last week, there were 13 that were approved by Congress. Trump's had the slowest cabinet filling since George Washington, and at least back then they were doing it all by ear. This is not the fault of Trump (he's got lots of other stuff to get blamed for, but not this). What does this say about how the democrat's response to him? (Congressional approval committees are set up to usually require bipartisan presence, if not support). If I ask you to do a job, and then set you up to fail, is it not fair for you to ask for more cooperation?

Of course, none of this justifies a power grab, but then again statements and allegations and actions are never made in vacuums either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, APSMS said:

What does this say about how the democrat's response to him? (Congressional approval committees are set up to usually require bipartisan presence, if not support).

Well, I would suppose they do what people expect them to do - if they are populists and try to be popular amongst people. But if they aren't populist and doing this to commit political suicide and to be hated by the majority of the people, well I had to think they are idealists. No?

But I may be too naive to understand american politics.

27 minutes ago, APSMS said:

If I ask you to do a job, and then set you up to fail, is it not fair for you to ask for more cooperation?

Now you confused me. Democrats asked Trump to do the job? So yes, it's unfair they don't support him now. But if they support him - what is the meaning of the word 'bipartisan' then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, so are you in favor of repealing Obamacare? 

Because the 2nd articles or a bit non sequitur to Obamacare not being replaced. They thing that kills me about Obamacare is that they did nothing to limit insurance companies' profit margins at the same time they forced everyone to buy from them. They gave them a guaranteed market monopoly, and them said we'll pick up the tab if you charge to much. 

I know that they have stories of people willing to pay the tax fine over buying insurance, because the levy is cheaper than the insurance, and that these stories are actually rather rare, but no one should even be considering such a plan. How can you say we've covered millions of people with health insurance when you did it by coercion? That's extortion, not coverage. Like saying that the communist party is the most popular party in the Soviet Union when you can't have any other parties under punishment of death or work camp.

For the record I am in favor of universal health insurance, something Obamacare is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not informed enough on Obamacare or the GOP alternative to make a valid point here, but looking in on from the outside the US healthcare system looks like a mess. 

Coming from Europe, specifically the UK, which as you might know has the fabulous completely free at the point of use healthcare system, the US system looks overly complex and expensive. Obamacare, from what I have read extended coverage and make it less expensive, which should surly be a good thing?

We've had Universally free healthcare since the '50s. I think it's about time the US joined the bandwagon. :P 

matias93 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best health care plan for a nation would be universal coverage of preventative medicine and emergency procedures with small (no more than $30) copays at point of use (to prevent a tiny minority from wasteful visits equivalent to a large minority, they say 20% of customers make 80% of complaints) and completely out-of-pocket for elective procedures and OTC medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, _Michael said:

Obamacare, from what I have read extended coverage and make it less expensive, which should surly be a good thing?

In theory. Unfortunately that's where it stays. Like I said, it extended coverage by forcing you to buy insurance. That's not extending coverage. I appreciate other parts, like extended adult children healthcare for people living at home, and the elimination of lifetime benefits restrictions and the mandate about preexisting conditions (which was totally sick and evil on the parts of the insurance companies).

But it should have been done a different way; mandate the nationalization of the health insurance companies (like Amtrak) (too radical) or put limits on profit margins. Neither was done, nor was anything done to limit the cost of care and pharmaceuticals.

matias93 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nationalizing health insurance would be the best option available. However, people with nothing to lose are desperate enough to revolt. If The D'ump angers enough people and puts enough people in a position where they have nothing to lose, his presidency might soon end (possibly among other things)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, _Michael said:

Obamacare, from what I have read extended coverage and make it less expensive, which should surly be a good thing?

Even living on a country with a fairly terrible health insurance system (designed to force people to fake indigency or to pay a private for coberture they won't be able to use when needed) I feel the same about the US system: it is almost incomprehensible and I'm in no condition to try study it as carefully as it is needed.

5 hours ago, APSMS said:

But it should have been done a different way; mandate the nationalization of the health insurance companies (like Amtrak) (too radical) or put limits on profit margins. Neither was done, nor was anything done to limit the cost of care and pharmaceuticals.

Both of those ideas are basically common sense, what is to say, something completely foreign to political elites, particularly rightists and third-way socialdemocrats. 

In any case, what has been done here in Chile is to create a list of health conditions that had public coberture (i.e. very cheap to be treated, but only on public hospitals), and to force drug stores to import and sell generic pharmaceuticals, or to accept that they will be distributed at fabrication cost on municipalities (this only after the drug stores were found creating a cartel to rise prices artificially)

3 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

Nationalizing health insurance would be the best option available. However, people with nothing to lose are desperate enough to revolt. If The D'ump angers enough people and puts enough people in a position where they have nothing to lose, his presidency might soon end (possibly among other things)

For the sake of personal preferences, I would like to find you reason, but frankly, I've seen documented much harsher mistreatments of electorates that end on massive shows of loyalty to the leader or simple resignation at the dominance of the regime. If you ask me, the conditions for something relevant to be done are two: (1) the Trump voters realising their candidate doesn't represent them, neither on their interests nor on their style and rejection of the establishment, and (2) the general electorate having a credible oppositional candidature and political party, with a program that differs effectively from economic austerity, corporate welfare and warmongering. Nowadays, no one of those conditions are being accomplished.

APSMS likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you overly concerned about Trump, and insisting that he be impeached, I have something for you that you may have already seen:

It should help with some of the anxiety. Trump's not going to be impeached anytime soon, as far as I can tell. Pence will only be worse, if you ask me, so enjoy it while it lasts.

You're going to have to avoid this thread after taking this drug, though. I don't really want that, but it's the only way the prescription works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impeachment isn't going to happen anytime soon (certainly not within 2 years) but a full-scale revolution or successful secessionist movements are likelier. We already have a brain drain, mass protests, riots, and even assassination attempts. If the political situation keeps getting worse, it would be foolish to think the people's reactions will get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

Impeachment isn't going to happen anytime soon (certainly not within 2 years) but a full-scale revolution or successful secessionist movements are likelier.

*:read:

 

 

*:no:

 

Does anyone not remember the civil war? The secessionists would have no will to fight, and the federal government no stomach for secessionist dissension (in other words, overwhelming response). None of the states are economically sound enough to actually secede from the union, and the national and state debt has seen to that, not to mention the economic war that the federal government would wage on a secessionist state to bring them to their knees and unilaterally annex them back again. Not to mention there's zero legal basis for any state secession. Even Texas, the only state to have enjoyed a reasonable amount of time as their own independent republic, only retains the right to separate into 5 new states (within the union), not the right to secede from it entirely.

One of the things that the growing federal government has engendered is an increased reliance on federal overreach into their state politics, finances, and economies. Not to mention that most of the western states have significant portions of their land owned by the federal government, which would need to be paid off (at enormous cost) in order to avoid stringent economic sanctions that would result of the seizure of such lands. I think people that suggest this underestimate the power of the federal government in their local area, which goes mostly unseen. As proud as I might be of the Bear Flag Republic, its actualization were always vaporous, especially in the wake of the growing federal government and the decline of federalism among the liberal discourse.

Liberals have hoisted their own petard by denying states the right to maintain their own independent mandates, thinking that they would always retain control of the central government. This decline in federalism has led to the inability for states to retaliate in meaningful ways against federal directives. The law is a two way street. You cannot argue for liberal federalism and simultaneously deny conservative federalism; the law does not work this way, and you only foment resent and rebellion, creating gridlock and stalemates in government because the people in their states have come to understand that the liberals in the federal government will not recognize their desire to not be tread on (don't tread on me), and realize that compromise means the end of their efforts to maintain the style of life that they value. Why is their gridlock? Because the liberals insist on sticking their federally backed fingers into every pie, and the response from conservatives has been to remove every possible avenue of liberal recourse at a legislative level, because for better or worse more conservatives are voting more often for the candidates they want to carry out their conservative (social and fiscal) agenda, which is why Republican congressmen outran Trump in the election in almost every race and district. What does that say about where the Obama administration was heading compared to what the people of the country were asking for?

BLANKBLANK and nos.17 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of liberal federalism: I'm opposed to it also. Despite being homosexual, I was disappointed in the Supreme Court oppressing red states to grant privileges to a population that comprises 10% of urban population and 4% of overall national population. There are other examples were the tail wagged the dog, all of which led to Il Donce's victory through pandering and deceipt.

 

If New England, the Pacific Northwest, and Southwest (including California) all revolt at the same time, with most of the free world backing the revolution, including our neighbors Canada and Mexico, we could win and possibly even remain united with the loyal states (just with power diverted to the revolutionaries). We could all ask for peaceful secession but if we banded together (after our oppressors decide they want war) we could take over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

Impeachment isn't going to happen anytime soon (certainly not within 2 years) but a full-scale revolution or successful secessionist movements are likelier.

The only credible option on that repertory would be the assessination, considering the political history of the US; anything else would be too much effort, mobilisation and conflict to be possible to be made. A magnicide, on the other hand, only requires a fanatic and a gun, both in high surplus on the United States since several centuries.

7 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

with most of the free world backing the revolution, including our neighbors Canada and Mexico

That's what won't happen (well, not only that). No other country will try to do something about an internal conflict: it is simply too risky to mess up with the guys with the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. Just imagine what could happen to any other country if an outright civil war erupted on the US in the 21th century: surely both US belligerants could be a credible nuclear menace.

On any internal conflict in the US, the most other countries could do, aside good-intentions declarations at the UN, would be to give some modest financial support (mainly to try to do some shark loans) and very trivial cyberwar attacks.

* * *

And what will happen? As I've said before, if there is an impeachment, it would be promoted by the GOP congressists and aimed to oust Trump to give Pence the government (i.e. zero changes for real people, in the best case scenario). A successful assessination attempt would deliver the same, only adding that Trump would become a supremacist martyr or such. The only other prospect is to wait the corresponding 4 years and to carry a better candidate from the opposition; if you ask me, that would require to lift a candidacy from outside the Democratic party, because their dirigence is adamant on protecting their corporate interests and discard anyone that hasn't been bought by them.

APSMS likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US_Budget_2017.jpg

How did so many people get so many degrees in sciences and yet can't even effect any positive and healthy development of civilization?    So the US budget goes ballistic...  NASA hanging by a thread even just in case we need to catapult some stones from low orbit over the melting glaciers...

Hold on, what kind of transportation exactly gets 13.3% increase?  Why, any vehicle that can transport nukes, of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, RandyE said:

Hold on, what kind of transportation exactly gets 13.3% increase?

That would be part of the infrastructure rebuilding, most of which would be for Interstate highways and other such projects. No comment on the rest of it.

RandyE and matias93 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Trump transition team did include as an infrastructure priority a current Texas Central proposal for a bullet train between Houston and Dallas using JR Central N700 Series "Nozomi" Shinkansen trainsets.  I oppose Trump in aghast disgust on almost every issue, but, as I've have playfully called for a "Texas Tokaido," I'll go with this one!  For the slower regional commuter line serving San Antonio-Austin, maybe we can push the JR Kyushu 787 Series, whose cool engines look like armored helicopter gunships merged with Darth Vader's faceplate--c'mon, what better image to instill fear along South Texas's southern border!  Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that the dreamed international bullet train between San Antonio and Monterrey, Mexico, to be built with a big, beautiful door at Laredo, is dead on arrival.  Actually, like the Trump Tower wiretapping claims, the false story of millions of illegals voters, the failed tax returns releases, the denials of suspicious ties to Russian agents, the fake Birther investigation, and the Freudian obsession with inauguration crowd size, there is now fuzzy backpedalling about whether The Mad Hatter seriously meant to make a deal for actual Shinkansen trains for Texas during Prime Minister Abe's visit or whether the Trump transition team had any clue as to what it was doing.  Oh well, back to cutting off after-school child care, slashing meals-on-wheels programs for the elderly and disabled, and taking away health care from another 24 million Americans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing this is the SC4 community where everything is freely considered at least for its reasonable plausibility.

I think the wiretapping and Russian spy buddies issues are red-herrings, detracting from any meaningful and useful discussion of actual development or repair of any civil infrastructure or social services or otherwise, but not so much for any malintent.  

I think the problem is originating more so in the scientific community.  Scientific and legal fraud have become so proliferate its like an epidemic worse than any malformed political or economic structure.  The work that needs to get done in science is not getting done not because of lack of funds or lack of technical skill, but because of incorrect or insufficent directives. 

I also think China has the best sense of direction in pursuing advance of human knowledge and technology, however its political directives are misguided.  The island building thing especially is plain useless.  The flight of man to the far side of the moon is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randy, I frankly cannot see how this could be a strong casual link, between problems on the scientific community and problems with electoral politics. No matter we would like to see it that way, the fact is that scientists exert a minimal effect and leverage on public opinion, and their problems remain very contained in their community.

Maybe you can develop more about the intermediate steps that show the causation

RandyE likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an Account  

Sign up to join our friendly community. It's easy!  :thumb:


Register a New Account

Sign In  

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now


  •  
  • Similar Content

    • By SimCityHawk
      Sin City - Las Vegas in SimCity 3000. This is one of my better cities. Full of gambling and other crazy stuff to do. 

    • By Diego Del Llano
      The Transamerica Pyramid at 600 Montgomery Street between Clay and Washington Streets in the Financial District of San Francisco, California, is a 48-story postmodern building and the second-tallest skyscraper in the San Francisco skyline. Its height will be surpassed by Salesforce Tower, currently under construction.The building no longer houses the headquarters of the Transamerica Corporation, which moved its U.S. headquarters to Baltimore, Maryland, but it is still associated with the company and is depicted in the company's logo. Designed by architect William Pereira and built by Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company, at 853 ft (260 m), on completion in 1972 it was the eighth tallest building in the world.
       
       
      This file Includes: Functional Landmark with 4,000 CO$$$ Jobs
      To install: Unzip the folder inside and dragg it on C:\Program Files\Maxis\SimCity 4 Deluxe\Plugins
    • By SimCityHawk
      El Paso and Ciudad Juarez in SimCity 3000. Two cities on each side of the border. El Paso is situated north of the border while the troubled Ciudad Juarez is situated south of the border
    • By nofunk
      Happy 100 million downloads on the STEX!
       
      The Centre Building stands at 212 W. Wisconsin Avenue in downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Originally opened as the Grand Warner Theatre in 1931, the 12-story Art Deco office tower is now home to the Center Theatre Corporation and the Downtown Milwaukee visitor center. Its elaborate trompe l'oeil mural on the east wall makes it a landmark on the city's Wisconsin Avenue corridor.
       
      The Centre Building provides 331 CO$$ jobs. Add this Midwest gem to your city today!
       
      A collaboration between nofunk and Jasoncw! Special thanks to Jasoncw for the fantastic texture work!
       
      - 1x2 growable and ploppable CO$$ versions
      - Grows in the New York tileset
      - Available in MaxisNite and DarkNite
      - DarkNite requires the Day and Nite Modd
       

    • By nofunk
      Happy 100 million downloads on the STEX!
       
      Also known as the 7th Street Hotel, the South Loop Club stands at 701 S. State Street in Chicago, Illinois. Built sometime in the late 1920s at the corner of S. State and 7th Street (now known as Balbo Avenue), the South Loop Club still stands as a unique Art Deco building in Chicago's South Loop neighborhood.
       
      The Centre Building provides 57 CS$$ jobs. Add this Midwest gem to your city today!
       
      - 1x2 growable and ploppable CS$$ versions
      - Grows in the New York tileset
      - Available in MaxisNite and DarkNite
      - DarkNite requires the Day and Nite Modd
       

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.