I happen to be an expert on both aluminum and clarifying shampoo. This is me: — frank

So how much energy does it take to produce aluminium? It's a lot, right! You could use renewable energy to create hydrogen fuel, and burn that to power these energy intensive industrial processes. I understand, the entire world's current energy demand could be met from a square of solar panels 450 miles to each side. That's over 200,000 square miles - but we cut down 170,000 square miles of rain-forest every year! And it wouldn't have to be one 450x450 mile square. The best place for such installations, I would argue - is at sea, because there's water that can be transformed into both hydrogen fuel and fresh water - piped inland, to burn in traditional power stations, and do things like irrigate wastelands for agriculture - rather than clear cutting and burning the forests.

My great-grandfather saved bits of string and aluminum foil and passed them down. I inherited them and use them to filter out alien broadcasts and lies from Donald Trump.

You meanwhile go on and on about aluminum production costs while completely unprotected. You do the math.

My great-grandfather saved bits of string and aluminum foil and passed them down. I inherited them and use them to filter out alien broadcasts and lies from Donald Trump.

You meanwhile go on and on about aluminum production costs while completely unprotected. You do the math. — frank

Is that a threat? I understand the things I'm talking about are sensitive - but given the little I have to lose, and the possibly infinite opportunity cost for humankind, I cannot in good conscience concede to any such threat. I seek to fulfill what I see as a naturally occurring obligation, to take what has been built from sticks and stones by the struggles of all previous generations, to secure the future for humankind. It is technologically possible to support a large human population sustainably. The difficulties are ideological - and I'm trying to deal with those questions honestly and sensitively. On paper, the prognosis is good. We are actually very well placed to achieve sustainable markets, providing for high standards of human welfare, leveling off at around 11 billion people by 2100. But not if we stick our head in the sand.

Only because you have no braaaaains! — karl stone

:clap: :rofl:

Donald Trump donated his last quarter salary to alcoholism research.

I happen to be an expert on both aluminum and clarifying shampoo. — frank

How can you be an expert on something you can't even spell properly?

On paper, the prognosis is good. — karl stone

Without a global coalition to do it? Are you thinking that China will do it unilaterally? I mean, notice how vehemently Euros hate Americans and it's the same culture. How could a global coalition come into being?

How can you be an expert on something you can't even spell properly? — S

You need more aluminum foil. On your head.

I mean, notice how vehemently Euros hate Americans and it's the same culture. — frank

Maybe we would hate you a little less if you put a little more effort into saying "aluminium".

Too many syllables.

You need more aluminum foil. On your head. — frank

Have you seen the size of my head? You'd need to hire a crane.

Just get a garbage can and make a helmet out of it.

Just get a garbage can and make a helmut out of it. — frank

First of all, I should probably empty it of all of Sir2u's awful comebacks.

On paper, the prognosis is good.
— karl stone

Without a global coalition to do it? Are you thinking that China will do it unilaterally? I mean, notice how vehemently Euros hate Americans and it's the same culture. How could a global coalition come into being? — frank

I do not suggest a globalist approach. I suggest regionalism. Regional trade blocs are emerging all across the world, EU, AU, ASEAN, and so on. These do not suffer, to the same extent global government would suffer, from the problem of perceived legitimacy. Regional government has a natural interest in promoting internal markets - which promote human welfare, in turn necessary to slow the growth of human population. Further, because nations tend to trade most with their immediate and close neighbours - the cost of regulations applied across a region like the EU, with 28 countries, are mitigated, because a cost that applies equally to direct economic competitors is not a competitive disadvantage. So regional government can afford to have higher regulatory standards, and the market is too large to be threatened by big companies wanting a race to the bottom for profit.

leveling off at around 11 billion people by 2100 — karl stone

Don't worry, there won't be 11 billion people by 2100.

Ok, I'm not sure what this is all about, but it looks anti-Trump so it must be (a) true, and (b) significant.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault-definition-womens-rights-justice-department-a8744546.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2H9-vIcGBlNpXiRwldDSgoAY8GzGCo297rNrBPZQvj2LEIuact0_jdj-A#Echobox=1548350752

It's true but a website definition and not the statutory definition. It now seems to match the statutory definition used in the Violence Against Women Act. That Act expired during the government shutdown but appears to have been extended again until 15 February. Whether there's a policy change related to the change in definition isn't clear. Reason to pay attention for now.

Fact check of Donald Trump's speech.

Trump has apparently thrown another Twitter hissy fit in response to an SNL impression by Alec Baldwin, asking how media outlets get away with such mockery, and implying that there should be "retribution." Other than perhaps Richard Nixon, has there in recent memory been a POTUS with such clearly anti-democratic tendencies?

It's bad enough that Trump praises dictators (or quasi-dictators) such as Putin, Erdogan, Kim Jong Un, and Duterte, but he himself has already floated the idea of using FCC powers to revoke the broadcast licenses of media outlets which displease him, even, apparently, when this displeasure results from the time-honored tradition of an SNL impersonation, the rite of passage for each and every POTUS over the past 30 years or so. He has also invoked yet again his labeling of the press as "the enemy of the people," a page from the dictator textbook. What a thin-skinned, cruel, vain man-child.

"I don't care. I believe Putin."

That's what President Trump is alleged to have said in a discussion with U.S. intelligence regarding information he was given about North Korean intercontinental missiles and whether they could reach the United States. — CBS

It's Bernie bitch, 2020 let's fucking go

So did anyone else watch the Cohen testimony?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

They made it difficult to watch through grandstanding, misplaced moralizing, and incoherent attacks, and overall hypocrisy. I don't understand how some of them were elected. Higgins was an absolute moron, as was Meadows, Jim Jordan is just a boot-licking dipshit.

The bits of it I saw were a bit insane. What the hell has happened to the american democracy? Are these kinds of elected representatives the result of extreme gerrymandering? Or is there some sort of collective insanity going on?

From what I read in the newspapers it was really entertaining.

What the hell has happened to the american democracy? Are these kinds of elected representatives the result of extreme gerrymandering? Or is there some sort of collective insanity going on? — Echarmion

Good question.

I really wonder what will happen after Trump. It brings to my mind questions like a) What damage has Trump done to the GOP? b) What is the counter-response to Trump when the political pendulum swings back? Above all, c) What happens to American political discourse? Is the discourse salvageable or does the discourse continue breaking apart to two different camps that basically don't talk to each other, stay in their own worlds and result in a situation where to reach normal political compromises, that a democracy needs to function, becomes impossible.

So. Manafort got a slap on the wrist because the judge identifies better with the perpetrator than the victim(s). Class justice.

EDIT: How is it even relevant Manafort doesn't stand trial for collusion? That's like doing a search in a house because of an investigation in theft and finding drugs. It's not even remotely relevant to the sentence.

What would be interesting to see if Ellis has dealt with tax fraud before and whether he thought the guidelines were excessive then as well and that he reached very low sentences too.

Class justice. — Benkei

This is a major failing of the justice system. Perhaps we need a corollary to the principle that one be tried before a jury of one's peers, that one should not be sentenced by one's peer. It would be possible to co-opt an appropriate panel of shop-workers and taxi drivers to deal with errant bankers, politicians, and lawyers.

Just based on the number of convictions of Trump's associates and the 17 investigations of Trump himself, I think we can safely say this is an unusually corrupt and inept administration.

We went from Obama to this. If the amplitude of the pendulum swing continues to escalate, we'll have Gandhi for president in 2020.