Trump General Discussion III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So does this mean 1994 (or thereabouts, i'm not exactly sure what year it was where not jokes were considered the pinnacle of humor, but i'd say 94 is the general ballpark) is when America was last great?

i'm waiting with baited breath for the day he quotes the illustrious Pee Wee Herman and tells a troll that he knows they are but what is he.

That "i've been here so long i remember" thread reminds me. I remember when headache was a republican! ;) it's also a good thing that for some reason I remember his AIM handle, since we'll be reverting back to a time when America was great I may need it as a means of communication again.
1gkeqgdmj7_twly7a.png
 
Hope you weren't holding your breath Moonlit ;)


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I have a sinus infection. Waiting for it to clear up before I can give the questions my full attention and post grammatically correct long-form responses. I don't want to get lumped in with other Trumpers who are notorious for displaying bad grammar. ;)
 
Promoting space is one thing, but do you really think we should be going back to the moon? And taking NASA off of climate change to do it?
 
Promoting space is one thing, but do you really think we should be going back to the moon? And taking NASA off of climate change to do it?


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Space exploration isn't merely about spending money to reach humankind's greatest leap. There's nothing wrong with developing new technologies to reach the same location. I worked for NASA last year, on the Evolvable Mars Campaign. No, the moon isn't in the books, but it very well could be as a proving ground for Martian space flight travel.

In regards to "taking NASA off climate change," not only is it not even remotely as simple as that, but NASA also isn't a sole player in that category. There's the EPA and the NOAA, just for starts. Research at NASA is never as cut and dry as to say you can take NASA "off climate change." A lot of the work done is diversified and mixed into other projects. It's hard to simply cut that out of NASA, when the research is so broad, but even so, that's only a tiny part of NASA as an agency.
 
I have a sinus infection. Waiting for it to clear up before I can give the questions my full attention and post grammatically correct long-form responses. I don't want to get lumped in with other Trumpers who are notorious for displaying bad grammar. ;)

Oreg, best to ignore the few folks here who spend all their time trying to project their own insecurities onto others, just for the sport of it. ;)
 
I have a sinus infection. Waiting for it to clear up before I can give the questions my full attention and post grammatically correct long-form responses. I don't want to get lumped in with other Trumpers who are notorious for displaying bad grammar. ;)


Get well soon, hope you can enjoy your nye


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Get well soon, hope you can enjoy your nye


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Thanks, bud. Gonna take it easy NYE. The past 3 weekends were busy. Gonna immerse myself in Alt(ernative)-R(elaxation). Maybe. I'll be back with some posts as soon as the brain juice flows.
 
Oreg, best to ignore the few folks here who spend all their time trying to project their own insecurities onto others, just for the sport of it. ;)


No insecurities here, just been waiting for those particular answers for months so I'm glad someone is willing to finally engage.

Speaking of which, when are you willing to drop the passive aggressive bs and engage yourself?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Space exploration isn't merely about spending money to reach humankind's greatest leap. There's nothing wrong with developing new technologies to reach the same location. I worked for NASA last year, on the Evolvable Mars Campaign. No, the moon isn't in the books, but it very well could be as a proving ground for Martian space flight travel.

In regards to "taking NASA off climate change," not only is it not even remotely as simple as that, but NASA also isn't a sole player in that category. There's the EPA and the NOAA, just for starts. Research at NASA is never as cut and dry as to say you can take NASA "off climate change." A lot of the work done is diversified and mixed into other projects. It's hard to simply cut that out of NASA, when the research is so broad, but even so, that's only a tiny part of NASA as an agency.

I didn't just throw the climate change thing out there, Trump did.
 
When Newt talked about colonizing the moon, it was his best idea I've heard from him.

We have to start thinking about progress for our species, as resources here on Earth will be limited.

Moon, Mars, deep space....assuming we don't kill ourselves off, it's really the best solution to look at


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
When Newt talked about colonizing the moon, it was his best idea I've heard from him.

We have to start thinking about progress for our species, as resources here on Earth will be limited.

Moon, Mars, deep space....assuming we don't kill ourselves off, it's really the best solution to look at


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Agree with what you and LuckyNumber7 both have said.

These sorts of things would only help get more kids interested in science. Ya know, real science. Not just Marvel Universe bullshit. This has been a problem in the U.S. for quite some time. Inspiration matters a lot. Dream big, think big. See a career in scientific fields as being just as exciting as being a YouTube star. Maybe that many more smarties will stop worrying about pop culture nonsense.

Here is what Robert Zubrin said about going to Mars (and going back to the Moon will serve as impetus to get to Mars)

Dr. Zubrin: As I see it, there are three reasons why Mars should be the goal of our space program: and in short, it’s because Mars is where the science is, it’s where the challenge is, and it’s where the future is. It’s where the science is because Mars was once a warm and wet planet, it had liquid water on its surface for more than a billion years, which was about 5 times as long as it took life to appear on Earth after there was liquid water on here, so if the theory is correct that life is a natural development from chemistry, where if you have liquid water, various elements and enough time, life should have appeared on Mars even if it subsequently went extinct, and if we can go to Mars and find fossils of past life, we would have proven that the development of life is a general phenomenon in the universe.

Or if go to Mars and find plenty of evidence of past bodies of water but no evidence of fossils or the development of life, then we can say that the development of life from chemistry is not sort of a natural process that occurs with high probability but includes some freak chance and we could be alone in the universe. Furthermore if we can go to Mars and drill, because there’s liquid water underground on Mars, reach the ground water, there could be life there now. And if we can get hold of that and look at it and examine its biological structure and biochemistry we could find out if life as it exists on Mars is the same as Earth life because all Earth life at the biochemical level is the same—we all use the same amino acids, the same method of replicating and transmitting information, RNA and DNA, all that---is that what life has to be, or could life be very different from that? Are we what life is, or are we just one example drawn from a much vaster tapestry of possibilities? This is real science, this is fundamental questions that thinking men and women wondered about for thousands of years, the role of life in the universe. This is very different from going to the moon and dating craters in order to produce enough data to get a credible paper to publish in the journal of geophysical research and get tenure, okay? This is you know hypothesis driven, critical science. This is the real thing.

Second, the challenge. I think societies are like individuals, we grow when we challenge ourselves, we stagnate when we do not. A humans to Mars program would be tremendously bracing challenge for our society, it would be tremendously productive particularly amount youth. Humans to Mars program would say to every kid in school today, “Learn your science and you could be an explorer of a new world.” We’d get millions of scientists, engineers, and inventors, technological entrepreneurs, doctors, medical researchers out of that, and the intellectual capital from that would enormously benefit us. It would dwarf the cost of the program.

And then finally, it’s the future. Mars is the closest planet that has on it all the resources needed to support life and therefore civilization. If we do what we can do in our time—we establish that little Plymouth rock settlement on Mars—then 500 years from now, there’ll be new branches of human civilization on Mars and I believe throughout nearby interstellar space, but you know, look: I ask any American what happened in 1492? They’ll tell me, “Well Columbus sailed in 1492,” and that is correct, he did. But that is not the only thing that happened in 1492. In 1492, England and France signed a peace treaty. In 1492, the Borgias took over the papacy. In 1492, Lorenzo De’Medici, the richest man in the world, died. Okay? A lot of things happened, if there had been newspapers in 1492, which there weren’t, but if there had, those would have been the headlines, not this Italian weaver’s son taking a bunch of ships and sailing off to nowhere, okay? But Columbus is what we remember, not the Borgias taking over the papacy. Well, 500 years from now, people are not going to remember which faction came out on top in Iraq, or Syria, or whatever, and who was in and who was out and you know….but they will remember what we do to make their civilization possible, okay?

So this is the most important thing we could do, the most important thing we could do in this time, and if you have it in your power to do something great and important and wonderful, then you should.
 
I didn't just throw the climate change thing out there, Trump did.


You kinda did, though. It's a wrong assumption to think there's some form of NASA balance between going to the moon and climate change. Just because Trump says it doesn't make it true. That's an easy statement that I'm sure we all know.
 
When Newt talked about colonizing the moon, it was his best idea I've heard from him.

We have to start thinking about progress for our species, as resources here on Earth will be limited.

Moon, Mars, deep space....assuming we don't kill ourselves off, it's really the best solution to look at


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


It's one of the few reasons why I can find a small sliver of respect for Newt. He's a dirty man, but it disappointed me when the right laughed at him for that proposition.
 
You kinda did, though. It's a wrong assumption to think there's some form of NASA balance between going to the moon and climate change. Just because Trump says it doesn't make it true. That's an easy statement that I'm sure we all know.

I think you're 100% misreading my post. I said going back to the moon using funding he wants to cut from doing climate research is stupid. And I believe you are saying that two can't so easily be separated, which I am aware of. You may work in that field, but that doesn't mean the rest of us know nothing about space exploration, or care nothing about the field. I was not advocating for less space travel, I've wanted them to expand for as long as I can remember. I've always had a love for space and astronomy, as long as I can remember. But Trump's attitude towards this topic, and the way he has approached NASA as a whole since the election is wrong, and it doesn't make me excited at all to return to the moon. You're putting feelings into my words where they don't exist, and drawing the wrong opinion on my stance to boot.

I hardly believe you didn't know what I was referring to, but just in case:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...onald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research
 
Agree with what you and LuckyNumber7 both have said.

These sorts of things would only help get more kids interested in science. Ya know, real science. Not just Marvel Universe bullshit. This has been a problem in the U.S. for quite some time. Inspiration matters a lot. Dream big, think big. See a career in scientific fields as being just as exciting as being a YouTube star. Maybe that many more smarties will stop worrying about pop culture nonsense.

Here is what Robert Zubrin said about going to Mars (and going back to the Moon will serve as impetus to get to Mars)

Oh come on. At least as far as the entertainment industry goes, there are just as many movies every year about realistic space travel in theaters as there are Marvel movies.

This just feels like another dismissive post about what's wrong with "kids today".

But I 100% agree that there should be an increase in space travel. I just think The Donald is handling it incorrectly.
 
This whole "Trump" thing. Being totally selfish, he can do whatever the hell he likes in the US as long as he doesn't start a world war and affect us outside the States. The guy obviously has some sort of personality disorder and the intellect of a five year old so I'm not sure he won't actually start a world war. Quite a troubling period coming up I fear.
 
Oh come on. At least as far as the entertainment industry goes, there are just as many movies every year about realistic space travel in theaters as there are Marvel movies.

I am speaking to dumb genre films. I just used "Marvel" as a catch-all but most anything that is unrealistic and silly. And I am contrasting them to smart sci-fi of whatever particular stripe, not just space travel movies. Of course I didn't say all that...but thought it would be more or less implied. I should have guessed a Marvel fanboy or fangirl would have taken offense. Glad to help.

However, if we actually want to compare the list of dumb comic book-like flicks (that is another catch-all) released this year to the list of actual realistic space travel movies, go right ahead. You'll embarrass yourself.

Additionally, all I really wanted to do with my reply was underscore that any focus on science is a good thing.

This just feels like another dismissive post about what's wrong with "kids today".

Sure. While this is all I actually said.

This has been a problem in the U.S. for quite some time.

I certainly include my own generation too. Who do you think is creating most all the pop culture garbage? It's Gen-X writers and producers.

Anyway, I would imagine there are probably more millenials by % that have a high interest in real science than from my own generation. Still, as compared to the rest of the world, Americans have a lot of catching up to do.

And it begs to be said, I'm a huge fan of plenty of genre stuff. I just detest a certain vapid brand of the stuff. I guess I'm a snob about it. And to pretend there is any balance between something resembling realistic or smart between that which is completely unrealistic and absurd is downright silly - as silly as you should feel right about now.
 
I think you're 100% misreading my post. I said going back to the moon using funding he wants to cut from doing climate research is stupid.


Promoting space is one thing, but do you really think we should be going back to the moon? And taking NASA off of climate change to do it?


What I'm I misreading? You asked if we should be going back to the moon. You also suggested NASA was to be "taken off climate change" as though that's a thing. It's not.

And I believe you are saying that two can't so easily be separated, which I am aware of.

I'm not only saying that, I'm saying the two are not mutually dependent. Once you get passed the tree funding structure of NASA, the amount of money spent on climate change research at NASA is minuscule and definitely nothing in comparison to space flight.

You may work in that field, but that doesn't mean the rest of us know nothing about space exploration, or care nothing about the field.


Wow, ok. I wasn't suggesting you know nothing, but now this comes off as incredibly belittling. I don't just work in the field. I have a broad background of planetary sciences, aerospace engineering, and space exploration systems training, as well as hands on experience working on a NASA team that plans and roadmaps human space missions. My words aren't just a voiced opinion. I by no means wish to belittle or condescend to whatever knowledge of space you might have, but simultaneously I would also appreciate not having my input be regarded as just another opinion.
 
I am speaking to dumb genre films. I just used "Marvel" as a catch-all but most anything that is unrealistic and silly. And I am contrasting them to smart sci-fi of whatever particular stripe, not just space travel movies. Of course I didn't say all that...but thought it would be more or less implied. I should have guessed a Marvel fanboy or fangirl would have taken offense. Glad to help.

However, if we actually want to compare the list of dumb comic book-like flicks (that is another catch-all) released this year to the list of actual realistic space travel movies, go right ahead. You'll embarrass yourself.

Additionally, all I really wanted to do with my reply was underscore that any focus on science is a good thing.



Sure. While this is all I actually said.



I certainly include my own generation too. Who do you think is creating most all the pop culture garbage? It's Gen-X writers and producers.

Anyway, I would imagine there are probably more millenials by % that have a high interest in real science than from my own generation. Still, as compared to the rest of the world, Americans have a lot of catching up to do.

And it begs to be said, I'm a huge fan of plenty of genre stuff. I just detest a certain vapid brand of the stuff. I guess I'm a snob about it. And to pretend there is any balance between something resembling realistic or smart between that which is completely unrealistic and absurd is downright silly - as silly as you should feel right about now.

Hah, OK. Holy shit. That comment had nothing to do with what kind of film I enjoy, and everything to do with your statement which still reads as dismissive towards the current generation. You want to grind it down to the types of movies I like, be my guest. Doesn't sound like this is a productive conversation to have, so I'd rather move on.




What I'm I misreading? You asked if we should be going back to the moon. You also suggested NASA was to be "taken off climate change" as though that's a thing. It's not.



I'm not only saying that, I'm saying the two are not mutually dependent. Once you get passed the tree funding structure of NASA, the amount of money spent on climate change research at NASA is minuscule and definitely nothing in comparison to space flight.




Wow, ok. I wasn't suggesting you know nothing, but now this comes off as incredibly belittling. I don't just work in the field. I have a broad background of planetary sciences, aerospace engineering, and space exploration systems training, as well as hands on experience working on a NASA team that plans and roadmaps human space missions. My words aren't just a voiced opinion. I by no means wish to belittle or condescend to whatever knowledge of space you might have, but simultaneously I would also appreciate not having my input be regarded as just another opinion.
And to me, your comments come off as looking down your nose at everyone else, once again. You sit yourself on such a high perch you miss what's going on. I said that I understand why the issue is important to you, but all I asked was you not act as though it's not as important to other people as well, simply because they don't have the strong connections you do.

I in no way was suggesting your view was simply an opinion, you have made your background very clear many times over and I appreciate your input. I just hate when you do it in a condescending way.

As to the punctuation in my original sentence making my one point into two separate ones, I do backtrack a bit, then. I don't know that now is the time to focus so strongly on moon exploration, when we have so much else to achieve. If it's with the idea of reaching further, awesome. If it's because Trump wants to remember what it was like in the 60s, then I think it's stupid. And again, this comes after his announcement of taking NASA off of climate change, so excuse me if I equate the two topics automatically. Even if the budget isn't that much, it still feels like, hey, stop focusing on earth and let's get back to all that moon research we did when America was great.

I'm really not interested in bickering back and forth with you. I truly feel you misinterpreted my feelings on this subject, and in turn, if you feel I belittled you, I apologize for making it seem that way. It just felt like you were really talking down on the subject, and that's not a feeling that feels so great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom