Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

Ha, I don't blame you.

[Graknorke]

But how will there ever be a Trump Tower in Bradistan if we don't let him in the country?

[Culise]

Clintons email server: drip, drip, drip

Also, 'beyond top secret' is an actual classification? I shouldn't really be surprised, but I thought it was more of a hollywood thing.

edit: Also, Clinton indictment when?

Yes and no.  Top Secret is the officially-highest classification system, but there are specially compartmentalized progams (the special access programs outlined in the article you linked).  You can blame it on classification clearance bloat - everyone and their mother in government wants general-access top-secret clearance for the sake of having top-secret clearance, so stuff that actually *needs* to be kept on a strict need-to-know basis has to be specifically compartmentalized in a SAP, code word, or the like. However, media aside, SAPs and SCIs are themselves not classification levels; they're just ways to handle specific methods of classifying information.  Hollywood, perhaps, but probably more "Get Smart" than "James Bond" in scope.

[Ghills]

Palin backs Trump.

As an aside, is it necessary to be pro-life to be properly conservative in 'murrica?

Yes and no.

No, there are many fiscal conservatives and limited government types who don't see the need to insert themselves into other people's private lives.

Yes because the social conservatives have drawn all the media attention by being bug-nuts crazy, and that's made the pro-life/conservative association much stronger than it used to be.

The Republican party is going through something of a crisis atm.  It's been an uneasy alliance between social and fiscal conservatives for a long time, and the diametrically opposed goals of those groups are finally splitting that alliance apart.  We might end up with 3 parties, we might end up with the Republicans losing many members. Either way, unless the Democrats shoot themselves in the face they're going to be the dominant party for a while.

[RedKing]

Helgo für Kanzler!
Putting the fire back in Germany's ovens!

[mainiac]

We might end up with 3 parties, we might end up with the Republicans losing many members.

(Probably) not without a change to the constitution.

Either way, unless the Democrats shoot themselves in the face they're going to be the dominant party for a while.

Maybe, but seeming political disarray has a habit of disappearing quickly due to the median voter theorem in action.

In 2008, democrats had a supermajority and the republican brand was in the toilet.  In 2010, the democratic brand was trashed, they lost the house and probably would have lost the Senate if the Tea Party hadn't supported some amazingly bad candidates in two key races.  All this despite no real surprises, the democrats did what they said they would do in their election platform and the economy in november 2010 was no real surprise given how things were in november 2008.

An even starker contrast is available if we go back to 1856.  Then the democrats were utterly dominant, the Whig party had collapsed and the Free Soilers had nominated a political neophyte without a prayer of winning.  Four years later the democratic party had split in two and had put in motion secession so convinced were they that their political cause was hopeless.  A party that hadn't existed in 1856 would go on to win the presidency for the next 24 years straight.

So even if the republicans nominated trump and had a major third party challenge, dont expect this to tell us a lot about how things will look in 2018 or 2020.

Helgo für Kanzler!
Putting the fire back in Germany's ovens!

Oh, is Germany making good use of clean burning biofuels as an energy source?  I thought Germany was mostly deforested these days.

[Loud Whispers]

But how will there ever be a Trump Tower in Bradistan if we don't let him in the country?

Pls no more towers ;-;

Every time you build another tower a historical building dies

[Strife26]

I could see some major realignment in the Republican party in the next two cycles

[mainiac]

But how will there ever be a Trump Tower in Bradistan if we don't let him in the country?

Pls no more towers ;-;

Every time you build another tower a historical building dies

Every time you dont build a tower, two or more historical buildings die.  The alternative to building tall is building sideways.  That means you need to tear down even more historical buildings to make room for the lowrises then if you built just one highrise.

Tall buildings also promote density which is good for economic outcomes and lessens environmental impact.

[Rolan7]

But how will there ever be a Trump Tower in Bradistan if we don't let him in the country?

Pls no more towers ;-;

Every time you build another tower a historical building dies

I'm American what is this "historical building" of which you speak?
We only have awesome buildings and outdated buildings
Also weird European buildings

[Loud Whispers]

Every time you dont build a tower, two or more historical buildings die. The alternative to building tall is building sideways.  That means you need to tear down even more historical buildings to make room for the lowrises then if you built just one highrise.

No, building sideways impacts the green belt, towers results in the destruction of historical buildings.

Tall buildings also promote density which is good for economic outcomes and lessens environmental impact.

Poor for human health, leads to burgeoning population and increases environmental impact, with an infrastructure that must accelerate in development to accommodate. Moreover, more people in dense populations makes controlling everyone that much easier, allowing for much better crushing of dissidents. And you don't put a pricetag on things that are priceless, Americans find it easy to sell their roots because they have none.

I'm American what is this "historical building" of which you speak?
We only have awesome buildings and outdated buildings
Also weird European buildings

You have imported historical buildings, which are pretty rad

[Rolan7]

Urban sprawl promotes liberty??
Sorry, you probably have a point but this is hard to process.  Sprawl looks awful and makes people drive 30-60 minutes each way to work in many places.

Also, not sure what this means

No, building sideways impacts the green belt, towers results in the destruction of historical buildings.

[mainiac]

Poor for human health,

Know what's bad for human health?  Smog.  Know what reduces smog?  Public transit.  Know what funds public transit?  Tall buildings.

and increases environmental impact,

Hey, you should send out an email to the Sierra Club, they've spent the past 10 years telling people that they should chose dense neighborhoods.
http://vault.sierraclub.org/sprawl/density/choose_density.asp

No, building sideways impacts the green belt, towers results in the destruction of historical buildings.

Because?  People who dont give a shit about the environment do give a shit about historic buildings?

with an infrastructure that must accelerate in development to accommodate.

You've got it entirely backwards.  The most cost effective transit is in dense areas.  It's building out that creates infrastructure liabilities that can't be paid.

Moreover, more people in dense populations makes controlling everyone that much easier, allowing for much better crushing of dissidents.

Um... interesting segue.  And on a very shaky ground, empirically speaking.

[SirQuiamus]

Moreover, more people in dense populations makes controlling everyone that much easier, allowing for much better crushing of dissidents.

Exactly. Londonistan needs more densely-populated immigrant ghettoes because controlling them is a piece of piss.

[Reelya]

"Tall buildings lead to burgeoning populations".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox#Fertility_and_population_density
Turns out the most dense populations consistently have smaller family sizes, worldwide. But now someone will probably shift the goal-posts and say "gotcha! people in tall buildings don't have the freedom to have a big family!"

As for the health impacts ... people in New York have at least as good a life expectancy as people in less-dense US cities. Also, people in London live longer than the national UK average.