Print

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

[Rolepgeek]

Take a look at historical American populist movements. That cross of gold speech guy, for instance.

Almost any -ist can be used as a pejorative. It helps imply mindless doctrine. The other term for technocrat is elitist.

Sidenote: a surprising number of bridges in America are in fact at risk of falling into their rivers.

It has always stumped me that the ancient Romans could build bridges that still stand strong in present day, yet our modern society builds bridges that need replacing every half century.

Planned obsolescence; we don't think in terms of centuries, we think in terms of decades.

Also the Romans didn't build them to the size we do, and companies will cut more corners on that sort of thing than workers who'll be literally crucified if the bridge breaks.

Also selection bias and iterative design; we don't see all the bridges that did was away, after all.

[smjjames]

How did you manage to godwin with that? Anyway....

On the whole vetting thing, Trump mentioned about extreme vetting, his list:

On Trump’s list of people to be excluded:

– sympathizers of terrorist groups

– those who do not believe in our constitution

– those who believe in bigotry or hatred (he's one to talk about bigotry when he acts like one)

– those who believe shariah law should supplant US law

– those not expected to “flourish in our country”

– those who would not embrace American ideals


The last two seem ripe for massively opening the door to excluding other people besides muslims. America is are supposed to be inclusive, not exclusive, and yes I'm aware of the reality, but still, that's supposed to be the moral we follow.

[Powder Miner]

– those who do not believe in our constitution

boy, i despise trump on constitutional stuff anyway
mr. wants-to-"open-up"-libel-laws and mr. thinks-that-people-who-would-protest-closing-the-internet-on-first-amendment-grounds-are-"foolish-people"

[smjjames]

Theres also the whole enforceability and constitutionality of it, and the last two seems like something that would be abused.

[Powder Miner]

oh yeah, those are some blatantly anti-first-amendment things too, to be sure

[misko27]

While the Hitler comparison might be a bit extreme, I can't think of a better one.

Mussolini has a similarly stupid face.

Honestly, the Manafort thing and Trump's huge campaign issues are the biggest arguments against him being President. Not that all the other things aren't terribad in their own way, but the sheer incompetence we see indicates that a Trump cabinet would be similarly incompetent, and ruled by the same sort of power-struggles that Bush Jr. suffered. I mean, the same issues that he has in the campaign would apply to any cabinet: no one serious wants to taint themselves with him, so he ends up with a very low bar for entry and ruled by ideologues with little experience or who've been out of the game for years. Part of being President is a huge amount of delegating to competent administrators; do you think Trump has competent administrators to bring in?

I mean Trump could easily end up parading himself around for four years while offending every human alive, while his lackeys run rampant and unleash hell.

Gun control advocates say the government will protect you, but that's just a bald-faced lie. When the government just stands down and lets rioters rule the streets, it's a good idea to have a gun around.

It's extremely good for an individual to have a gun around, but from the perspective of society, it is NOT good to add guns to riots. This is a conflict between public and private good.

On the topic of vetting, do we not already do vetting? I mean we vet plenty already. Hell I have a document on file from the FBI telling my grandfather that he would be deported for voluntary membership in a communist party in his country of origin. It didn't stick (only because of the intervention of certain interested parties), but there is already precedent for denying people entry on the basis of authoritarianism. In fact, that law is still on the books today.

[smjjames]

On the topic of vetting, do we not already do vetting? I mean we vet plenty already. Hell I have a document on file from the FBI telling my grandfather that he would be deported for voluntary membership in a communist party in his country of origin. It didn't stick (only because of the intervention of certain interested parties), but there is already precedent for denying people entry on the basis of authoritarianism. In fact, that law is still on the books today.

He said EXTREME vetting, meaning even stricter/harder/severe/thorough than it is now.

[PTTG??]

-snippy snippy-

I... Can you provide sources for this information?  As an avid gun collector who has spent years trying to find factual, moral justification for his hobby (and mostly failed), I would be exceptional interested in actual sources.  Not to insult you or anything, but the vast majority of gun-positive hearsay I've fact-checked ended up being false or misrepresented, despite my biases, so I'm a tad mistrusting of your anecdotes.  :\

Here's your justification.

Gun control advocates say the government will protect you, but that's just a bald-faced lie. When the government just stands down and lets rioters rule the streets, it's a good idea to have a gun around.

So you're saying it would be better if all the rioters had guns?

[mainiac]

So you're saying it would be better if all the rioters had guns?

The problem would sort itself out quickly and the survivors wouldn't have to deal with this shit anymore.

[Starver]

It has always stumped me that the ancient Romans could build bridges that still stand strong in present day, yet our modern society builds bridges that need replacing every half century.

Roman bridges that did not last half a century (also those that 'only' lasted a century or even a handful of centuries) aren't there today to be admired for their 'overengineered' longevity.

I'm sure there were many bridges that didn't last, but they then got replaced or forgotten about (probably after robbing most of the material that it doesn't take modern geosurveying of the right location to even find again!). At best, they formed an incidental background detail in the history of the new(er) bridge that did last until more recent history as an actual example of the infallible engineering of the Romans(/Greeks/Egyptians/Mesopotanians/Space Aliens)...

But that's getting off topic,. Just it's something I've always wanted to say.

[also more succinctly ninjaed by the following, it seems...]

Also selection bias and iterative design; we don't see all the bridges that did was[/wash] away, after all.

[smjjames]

Well, anything made from stone that is at least very well constructed is going to last for a hell of a long time just by virtue of it's material.

[mainiac]

But that's getting off topic,. Just it's something I've always wanted to say.

Of topic is where this thread belongs.

[Dorsidwarf]

I recently went to the big aqueduct that provided water for roman Nimes in southern france, the Pont du Gard it was super-cool.

It's several hundred meters long and about fifty high, is precision engineered and survived centuries of enthusiastic middle-ages peasants nicking stones out of the ends. The aqueduct descends 2.5 centimeters along its length.  It is part of an aqueduct system about 50 kilometers long, over which length there was a maximum of 12 meters of descent.

The romans were really, really good at this shit.




They did patch it up in the 1800s after an earthquake on the basis that they'd used it as a support for the road bridge across the river and if it collapsed it would take the bridge with it, apparently

Spoiler: A couple of photos I took edit: WARNING HUMUNGOUS (click to show/hide)

[WealthyRadish]

I bet in Roman times people complained about the ridiculous waste of building massive stone things that last forever, when there are more pressing issues like military campaign finance reform and the gross concentration of wealth in the top 1% of villa owners.

[mainiac]

What you say sounds iffy to me.  Jobs for the boys, shows the awesomeness of roman rule and makes your cities safer.  Also the Romans were pretty good at constantly reforming their military.  Right up until the end they kicked ass.