Print

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

[alway]

No, their clean energy companies are pretty quickly becoming a major sector for them; in solar for example they make about half the world's supply.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/05/chinese-solar-manufacturers-dominate-market-in-2015.html
Likewise, China now has approximately as many scientific researchers as the US or EU regions:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5964/407/tab-figures-data

In related news, Trump is cutting NIH funding by 20%:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trumps-budget-would-slash-scientific-and-medical-research/2017/03/15/d3261f98-0998-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html

But look on the bright side: if you are a scientist whose funding was slashed, you can move to China and leave the US to stew in its own irrelevance for the remainder of the century.
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-03-07/china-could-win-big-from-trump-s-border-rules

[smjjames]

Well, they did (and still do in some places) have a major pollution problem, which would be a pretty big incentive regardless.

And yeah, Trump is taking the scorched earth approach to budgeting by severely slashing almost everything that doesn't have anything to do with the military. :/ .

You'd think 'America First' would include the US being #1 in science, education, and other stuff, but nope.

He's also expected to release his full proposal sometime tomorrow. The whole indiscriminate budget cuts are going to set up for a massive budget fight as some of them just aren't politically feasible, or desireable, to cut.

[EnigmaticHat]

You know, I'd say that the rate that we produce new medical research at is easily the best thing about our healthcare system compared to other countries.

Its good Republicans didn't miss improving that one too.

[Frumple]

Hey man, gotta' let the private research industry do their thing. Because they're certainly going to stick around when huge chunks of their funding is gone, the rest no longer require them to be US affiliated, and half their research staff is being harassed at best due to being brain drain fellows here on visas or whatever.

Ho yez, dis is 'ow yu incentvice de research. Put it in vice made ov pennies, squeeze hard and votch dem scream :3

[muldrake]

Like him or not (I say not), it's essentially merely a return to the status quo that existed prior to Scalia's death, not any particularly drastic change.

Except it's not, because you'd have someone even more hostile to humanity and judicial sanity/scruples/etc. than scalia was, sitting there when there's a strong probability of at least one more supreme court position opening up while he's still alive and in the position. The status quo prior to scalia didn't have one or more SC seats likely to open in the next four or so years, and gods help me for saying it in the face of his later years, but scalia actually had something approaching judicial merit in comparison to the guy. Gorsuch being confirmed would definitely be a notable change, not just a return to the status quo. He's a different sort of beast than scalia, even if the latter was relatively similarly aligned. Change might not necessarily be drastic, but it's not a return to the same.

There's always a high possibility of people at the age of the current Supreme Court Justices dying.  Scalia was at higher risk.

Simply because something isn't identical in every respect to the previous situation doesn't mean it isn't essentially the same 4-4-1 balance the prior Court had, even if there are other factors in play such as Gorsuch's relative youth.  Also [citation neeeded] on there being some vast ground between the judicial positions of the two men, such that he would have made different decisions than Scalia would have made.

[Reelya]

Trump just said SnoopDogg should be jailed because his new music video has him aiming a gun at El Presidente.

[wierd]

So threatening! Next, Hollywood will get served an injunction for depicting presidential assassinations!

/s

Orange Oompa Loompa just feels threatened, and is acting out. Happens to petty dictators all the time, because they are paranoid about staying in power. This is exactly the kind of thing I would expect from our fearless leader.

[Starver]

Like him [Gorsuch] or not (I say not), it's essentially merely a return to the status quo that existed prior to Scalia's death, not any particularly drastic change.

Was that a status quo?

Aside from recusals, or any flip-flop-either-way SCJs (which is never knowingly going to be selected for, in an appointment), the best you have is consistent 5:4 or 4:5 in your viewpoint's favour or otherwise, whatever your viewpoint is.

(ETA: From the 4:4:1 comment, above, looks like I need to understand that more. Kennedy seemed the closest to flip-flop territory. And now most senior, after Scalia, his unapologetic swings away from his conservative roots would be missed if replaced by another Gorsuch-type, by mid-term Trump.)

[da_nang]

Oh, and btw, a Hawaiian judge has blocked the new travel ban. He has also cited other Trump aides/allies statements about it as one massive factor.

Do federal judges do background checks and the like on lawmakers and then stop legislation whenever a new tax law is being passed? Or copyright law? You know, to stop "hidden agendas" such as tax loopholes and draconian copyright laws due to bought politicians.

Because if they don't then this whole "previous statements" thing feels rather selectively applied.

[wierd]

(note, do not conflate this as being pro-trump. It is instead brutal honesty.)

More, a fair amount of hypocrisy. See, judges and other legal professionals will selectively put the beat-down on things that they see are likely to cause a massive influx of difficult cases, and will try to prevent the courts being hammered like that. As such, they are more apt to apply "prior statements" and other rationales of that nature toward high profile cases to preemptively put a stop to it using precedent and the like.

Tax loopholes, et al, are not high on that list-- People getting trapped in airports en-mass--- somewhat more likely to cause them grief.

[smjjames]

Well, Trump's Budget Proposal has been released (full text of it).

Some summaries and analysises:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/trump-budget-cuts/index.html

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/16/14912638/trump-budget-2018-explained-cuts-growth

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/16/14940444/2018-budget-trump-science-nih

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/16/14943826/trump-budget-proposal-climate-change

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/16/14940712/trump-budget-science-education-health (bit more of an opinion piece, but it does make a good point)

I'm gonna note that it's only a proposal and isn't likely to get through the Senate, and it's Congress that devises the budget, not the White House. Obama's budget proposal got killed in a 1-98 vote.

[Reelya]

Hell yeah, America is going to suffer a big Brain Drain with all the cuts Trump is proposing. Europe etc will snap up a lot of talent instead, it's already happening.

Trump must love Russia. Cutting spending on all consumer areas to spend all the money on more tanks and fighters is right up with Soviet policies before the big collapse.

Hell, if you have enough nukes, who even needs a State Department. Just make an automated message threatening to bomb their country which plays on the line whenever Trump calls a foreign leader.

[smjjames]

The immigration policy is actually already having that effect, before the budget stuff even comes into play.

It's already considered dead on arrival and it's Congress that sets up the budget, not the President, it's only a proposal. It's more of a guideline, but theres so many things that are politically nonviable to so many people that the final budget likely won't look anything like the Presidents proposal.

Also, Trump is still saying that there's lots of wiretapping evidence. If they fucking have proof, they fucking need to give it.

[Frumple]

Hell, never mind politically non-viable, one of those articles you linked notes parts of it are literally illegal. They'd have to amend laws just to bring the proposed figures to the table to begin with.

[smjjames]

Hell, never mind politically non-viable, one of those articles you linked notes parts of it are literally illegal. They'd have to amend laws just to bring the proposed figures to the table to begin with.

Yeah, the sequester, but it's something that Congress has to do. He's already said/implied that he wants to reverse the sequester.

Also, looks like Trump may have leaked classified info, namely that the CIA was hacked sometime during Obamas admin. We already know there were a whole bunch of hacking incidents of government stuff during the Obama years, so, it doesn't sound that classified, more like 'embarassing fact'. Really though, I think the public should know if the CIA was hacked.

If he said what was taken, yeah, THAT would be classified.