• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Bubba said:
Campaign spending numbers (from the local ragsheet): The money spent during Georgia's 2014 Senate race totaled roughly $15 per vote. The money spent for last week's special election in Georgia's 6th Congressional District (the majority of which was a combination of out of state money for the lead D (Ossoff) and GOP superpac money for anti-Ossoff ads) worked out to about $73 per vote.
Click to expand...

The new plan for every town. Get a special election as an economic development opportunity!
 
Over the weekend the march for science rallies seemed to happen all over the country. While I did not attend one, I found it interesting that there was also groups that were more anti-religion than pro-science.

My question is why can't the two co-exist? Take the big bang theory. Most people would say that is absolute science while ignoring the fact that it was created by Catholic Priest and Mathematician Georges Lemaître.
 
michaelskis said:
Over the weekend the march for science rallies seemed to happen all over the country. While I did not attend one, I found it interesting that there was also groups that were more anti-religion than pro-science.

My question is why can't the two co-exist? Take the big bang theory. Most people would say that is absolute science while ignoring the fact that it was created by Catholic Priest and Mathematician Georges Lemaître.
Click to expand...

I think we all know the Big Bang Theory was created by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady. Seriously.

I think the problem with people who believe strongly in religion is that they do not allow science to explain things. Science on the other hand allows for all concepts to be taken into consideration. They then remove the concepts that are not supported by facts or data and go with what is most likely the truth.

I agree that some in the science community don't look fondly on religion primarily because it isn't able to be supported by facts and data, but emotion and belief.

Also, "created by Georges Lamitre" is a little incorrect. The big bang theory is just that.... a theory. At this time it is prevailing theory on how the earth and the world was created. This is because there is empirical data that supports it. Lots of data. Lots.
 
My wife went to the March in Wichita. It was more about hey stupid, climate change is real, evolution is a thing, the world is round, facts are important. Not so much religion or anti religion brought into it.
 
Hink said:
I think we all know the Big Bang Theory was created by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady. Seriously.

I think the problem with people who believe strongly in religion is that they do not allow science to explain things. Science on the other hand allows for all concepts to be taken into consideration. They then remove the concepts that are not supported by facts or data and go with what is most likely the truth.

I agree that some in the science community don't look fondly on religion primarily because it isn't able to be supported by facts and data, but emotion and belief.

Also, "created by Georges Lamitre" is a little incorrect. The big bang theory is just that.... a theory. At this time it is prevailing theory on how the earth and the world was created. This is because there is empirical data that supports it. Lots of data. Lots.
Click to expand...

How is it a little incorrect... it is a theory that he created. (LINK) Did someone else create that theory? He did not establish it as fact, but created a theory to describe observable patterns. The ancient people used the information available to them to establish a theory that the sun revolved around the earth because it rose on one side and set on the opposite and it was positioned differently in different seasons. Today we have additional information to know better, but the theory of the big bang has not been disproven.

On a side note, I think Einstein had an interesting observation on Science and Religion...

Albert Einstein said:
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.
Click to expand...

The FACT is that the two do not need to be completely independant of each other. They may not always align perfectly, but the can coexist within the same context.
 
michaelskis said:
How is it a little incorrect... it is a theory that he created. (LINK) Did someone else create that theory? He did not establish it as fact, but created a theory to describe observable patterns. The ancient people used the information available to them to establish a theory that the sun revolved around the earth because it rose on one side and set on the opposite and it was positioned differently in different seasons. Today we have additional information to know better, but the theory of the big bang has not been disproven.

On a side note, I think Einstein had an interesting observation on Science and Religion...



The FACT is that the two do not need to be completely independant of each other. They may not always align perfectly, but the can coexist within the same context.
Click to expand...

I agree that they can coexist... sometimes even comingle in what attracted many to science. I know a few research scientists that were driven to the profession in part because of "their fascination with god's creation." Many scientists, however, struggle with faith because it tends to conflict with their talents & how their brains naturally work on a day-to-day basis--driven by empirical evidence. Where the paths diverge is when people start treating a religious text as a science book, or attempt to militarize religion against science. Science is not anti-religion... it just doesn't care about it. Religion is not necessary to conduct science. That coin flips the other way as well in that religion need not be anti-science. A lot of this comes down to the human application of religion--the imperfect using religion as a tool for which it was not intended.
 
CNN was on when I was at the gym and they were going over some of the big details of Trump's new tax plan. Looks like big tax cuts for everyone across the board. What I wanted to see that I did not was that the plan was going to simplify the process... but it looks like it will make it just as complicated.

My question is how is he going to pay for everything if there is less revenue and he is increasing spending?
 
michaelskis said:
CNN was on when I was at the gym and they were going over some of the big details of Trump's new tax plan. Looks like big tax cuts for everyone across the board. What I wanted to see that I did not was that the plan was going to simplify the process... but it looks like it will make it just as complicated.

My question is how is he going to pay for everything if there is less revenue and he is increasing spending?
Click to expand...

Ask Kansas. From what I've seen its very similar to the approach Kansas took a couple years back...oh and isn't someone from Kansas associated (a part) with the tRump administration?
 
Yes, the tRump took one of our congressmen for head of CIA or some such BS.

The Kansas tax plan works miracles. We have no business tax and lots of property tax. Plus everyone knows Kansas is a hotbed of job growth because of it. Don't forget that our state revenue is always mysteriously low for the past five years so we cut useless government programs like retirement pensions, roads, social services, schools, and all the other useless government stuff.

Property tax example:

A $155,000 valued home (about 1300 square feet) pays $2,300/year in taxes.

Sales tax is about 9.5% in the city

Plus we have our personal income tax.
 
dvdneal said:
Plus we have our personal income tax.
Click to expand...

City or State?

When I lived in Michigan, I had the trifecta, a City, State, and Federal income tax to pay. There was also property taxes and all that other fun stuff too. Was the sales tax both the City and the state or just the City?
 
Yup!

dvdneal said:
Property tax example:

A $155,000 valued home (about 1300 square feet) pays $2,300/year in taxes.

Sales tax is about 9.5% in the city

Plus we have our personal income tax.
Click to expand...

That is a PERFECT example of cutting off your nose to spite your face!! :-@ All while your major roads and bridges crumble under your dirt caked feet. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of simpleton farmers.....stay classy Kansass:r:
 
Bubba said:
Campaign spending numbers (from the local ragsheet): The money spent during Georgia's 2014 Senate race totaled roughly $15 per vote. The money spent for last week's special election in Georgia's 6th Congressional District (the majority of which was a combination of out of state money for the lead D (Ossoff) and GOP superpac money for anti-Ossoff ads) worked out to about $73 per vote.
Click to expand...

The money flowing in advance of the runoff for GA 6 is at $30 mil and counting - now the most expensive Congressional race in history. :r:
 
Over the weekend I read quite a bit of the American Healthcare Act that got passed last week. I give it a D- overall. It is different that what we have now, but no better.

It is a bad bill that will hurt the poor and benefit the wealthy. It changes the structure with tax incentives and subsidies.

The "women are preexisting conditions" crap is just political propaganda BS. In most situations, it does not federally mandate that preexisting conditions (which there is no list of what that is) are covered, but leaves it up to each state to decide.
 
michaelskis said:
Over the weekend I read quite a bit of the American Healthcare Act that got passed last week. I give it a D- overall. It is different that what we have now, but no better.

It is a bad bill that will hurt the poor and benefit the wealthy. It changes the structure with tax incentives and subsidies.

The "women are preexisting conditions" crap is just political propaganda BS. In most situations, it does not federally mandate that preexisting conditions (which there is no list of what that is) are covered, but leaves it up to each state to decide.
Click to expand...

I think insurance rates are just going to skyrocket again under this. Without the individual mandate, people who need the extra money for more immediate needs won't be getting insurance, and a lot of people who could afford it will decide they'd rather use that money in other ways. Which means the pool is going to go back to including a lot of high-risk, unhealthy people that need insurance and not as many healthy people to balance out the costs. And then the people that need it will be priced out and we'll go back to having people that need healthcare unable to afford it...
 
The media would have you think this new bill is replacing a filet mignon with a hot dog when in reality it's just a turd sandwich replacing a turd souffle. The fundamental problem is that you've got about half the population can't afford to pay market rate for health insurance and a significant portion of those can't afford to pay anything. About 1/6 of our nation's economy is based upon health care, and there is a MASSIVE private sector for it. If you think that those folks are going to be taking it in the shorts you're sadly mistaken. So be prepared to have your wallet lightened even more. And that's going to happen no matter what "care" act is ultimately in force.
 
gtpeach said:
I think insurance rates are just going to skyrocket again under this. Without the individual mandate, people who need the extra money for more immediate needs won't be getting insurance, and a lot of people who could afford it will decide they'd rather use that money in other ways. Which means the pool is going to go back to including a lot of high-risk, unhealthy people that need insurance and not as many healthy people to balance out the costs. And then the people that need it will be priced out and we'll go back to having people that need healthcare unable to afford it...
Click to expand...

I think you are correct. Which is why I think that a government funded preventative health care act would be the way to go. It would provide free preventative health care for everyone. As part of it, include an educational provisions to teach people how to stay healthy. I would expect that with proper prevention and training, people would need less treatment of health conditions.

MD Planner said:
The media would have you think this new bill is replacing a filet mignon with a hot dog when in reality it's just a turd sandwich replacing a turd souffle. The fundamental problem is that you've got about half the population can't afford to pay market rate for health insurance and a significant portion of those can't afford to pay anything. About 1/6 of our nation's economy is based upon health care, and there is a MASSIVE private sector for it. If you think that those folks are going to be taking it in the shorts you're sadly mistaken. So be prepared to have your wallet lightened even more. And that's going to happen no matter what "care" act is ultimately in force.
Click to expand...

This is my frustration with the whole thing from the get go. You take an industry that is full of corruption and abuse and get the Government involved despite it not having constitutional authority to mandate that the American people buy a service like this. If you think about the outside forces for a moment, it is a scary situation. 1/3 of hospitals are for-profit organizations. All of them are in competition with each other. For many surgeries, hospitals offer up to a 30% discount for those uninsured, and over 80-90% of the cost goes to hospital costs, which do not include the doctor's fees. Then let's bring in the pharmaceutical companies. They are not out to make people healthier, they are out to make money by selling drugs.

If the government really wanted to make people healthier, the FDA would close fast food restaurants, make smoking and drinking alcohol or soda unaffordable for people, require kids get at least a few hours of exercise every day in school, improve the nutrient content in school lunch programs, and require drug companies to invest a large portion of their profits into preventative health care programs. They would make memberships to gyms free if you attend work out 3 or more times a week. But of course people would flip out since that is not the role of government.
 
MD Planner said:
About 1/6 of our nation's economy is based upon health care, and there is a MASSIVE private sector for it.
Click to expand...

This is the main issue with universal healthcare in this country. It won't ever happen until politicians stop being beholden to the private sector which probably will never happen.

We are one of only two countries in the world that has commercials for medication (the other being New Zealand). That is insane to me.
 
AG74683 said:
This is the main issue with universal healthcare in this country. It won't ever happen until politicians stop being beholden to the private sector which probably will never happen.

We are one of only two countries in the world that has commercials for medication (the other being New Zealand). That is insane to me.
Click to expand...



Today is a historic day... So far I think we all agree on a political point. Someone mark it down on the calendar!
 
If science is murdered in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does that mean the climate isn't changing?

In another display of bare-knuckled, unprincipled ruthlessness, Scott Pruitt of Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency has a solution to the stubborn nature of facts:
Replace the scientists who assess those facts with people who will tell you what you want to hear.
That’s right — the agenda now is to begin removing actual scientists from the EPA’s Board of Science Counselors and replace them with non-academics.
The idea is to replace “the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate.”
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...climate-isnt-changing/?utm_term=.806380ecbd66

what next - we don't need degreed planners just hire builders,pavers, nimby's. ;)
 
Some of the things that people say at lunch are just so freaking stupid.

The two guys at the table next to me were talking about Trump and how he should have never been elected, how the electoral college was put in place by George Bush's friends to beat Al Gore, and how Hillary was the better candidate and that if she was elected, "There would be world peace and free healthcare for all."

I LOST IT laughing. I just could not handle it anymore. I was eating a alone so I turned and asked them if they are surprised by any of Trumps actions... in a very "how dare you speak to us" manner they responded "No". I then asked if they thought that anyone was surprised by Trumps actions, once again they said no. So I replied, "Just think about that for a moment, people elected a total lunatic because they thought he was the better choice, instead of the Queen of the Clinton Political Machine Hillary Clinton."

I don't like Trump, I think he has been a really crappy president, but come on. To deify Hillary cross into a whole new level of stupid.
 
The opt-out thing for states is incredibly stupid... they just set aside a big chunk of money to create high risk pools, etc. Something like 11 or 12 states have tried that. Every one of them have been complete failures.


I'm going to have to leave Texas. Between their anti-city screed, invented sanctuary cities issues, bathroom bills and complete kowtowing to special interests, I'm just not sure how much longer I can stomach living here. I didn't think we could have a dumber governor than Rick Perry. Unfortunately, it seems I was wrong.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I'm going to have to leave Texas. Between their anti-city screed, invented sanctuary cities issues, bathroom bills and complete kowtowing to special interests, I'm just not sure how much longer I can stomach living here. I didn't think we could have a dumber governor than Rick Perry. Unfortunately, it seems I was wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't know, the legislature seems to be making a name for themselves too. Take this great GOP-driven idea:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/te...n-ban-gays-jews-muslims/ar-BBASfaV?li=BBnb7Kz
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I hate my state.

A LOT.

I'm seriously considering running against my current state representative. Like it is not a joke anymore.
Click to expand...

JNA said:
Missouri is competing -

Hubrecht defends r@pe comments
http://themissouritimes.com/29356/hubrecht-in-hot-water-over-rape-comments/
Click to expand...

It's things like this and SRs comment that make me think of Plato. I'm sure I'll get the quote wrong, but it's something like, "The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is being ruled by someone inferior to yourself. That is the fear that makes decent people accept power."
 
Truth to what TML was saying.

Texas SB-4

Bill Title: Relating to the enforcement by campus police departments and certain local governmental entities of state and federal laws governing immigration and to related duties and liability of certain persons in the criminal justice system; providing a civil penalty; creating a criminal offense.


Sec. 752.0565. REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.
(a) For purposes of Section 66.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code,
a person holding an elective or appointive office of a political subdivision of this state does an act that causes the forfeiture of the person's office if the person violates Section 752.053.

(b) The attorney general shall file a petition under Section 66.002, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, against a public officer to which Subsection (a) applies if presented with evidence,
including evidence of a statement by the public officer, establishing probable grounds that the public officer engaged in conduct described by Subsection (a).
The court in which the petition is filed shall give precedence to proceedings relating to the petition in the same manner as provided for an election contest under Section 23.101.

(c) If the person against whom an information is filed based on conduct described by Subsection (a) is found guilty as charged,
the court shall enter judgment removing the person from office.
Click to expand...
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB4/2017
 
WSU MUP Student said:
TML trolling lvl: Expert
Click to expand...

They really have taken it to the next level. The TML executive director is unapologetic about his righteous anger toward our legislature right now. He was always so mild-mannered, but I think he's going to start kicking over tables and setting trash cans on fire in the Capitol based on the last time I saw him.
 
Wow, Trump fires FBI Director, James Comey - you know, the guy investigating his administration's ties to Russia. So now he can put his own appointee in there and it sounds like his new appointee is going to be Trump's own head of security. Shades of Nixon, anyone? :-c
 
Maister said:
Wow, Trump fires FBI Director, James Comey - you know, the guy investigating his administration's ties to Russia. So now he can put his own appointee in there and it sounds like his new appointee is going to be Trump's own head of security. Shades of Nixon, anyone? :-c
Click to expand...

No.... Nixon did not fire his FBI director.
 
Bubba said:
He fired the guy the Dems wanted fired months ago?
Click to expand...

A comparable situation would have been if Obama had fired Comey when he became a liability after making that 'more emails' announcement. Seems Obama had more political smarts, however, so that didn't happen.
 
Even the Nixon Presidential Library got in on the trolling!

2rc6e08.jpg



FWIW, I am of the feeling that Comey should have been canned months ago and the justification cited in the Deputy AG's letter is sound BUT all of the justification cited is nothing new and has been known for months and Trump went out of his way on more than one occasion to talk about how good of a job Comey was doing and how much confidence he had in him. The timing is truly suspect. What changed (or what was expected to change) that caused the AG's office and Trump to decide that he had to go now?
 
michaelskis said:
No.... Nixon did not fire his FBI director.
Click to expand...

Arguably, Cox's firing was much worse because he technically didn't fall within the "hire/fire" powers of Nixon. Nixon forced people out. Either way though, this marks the beginning of the end for the Trump presidency. All I could think of when I read it was the Dem's thinking:

url
 
Maister said:
A comparable situation would have been if Obama had fired Comey when he became a liability after making that 'more emails' announcement. Seems Obama had more political smarts, however, so that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

I have socks with more political smarts, fwiw.
 
I agree Comey should have been fired months ago, but now the timing is incredibly suspect. Imagine if Clinton had won and there were even half the accusations there are against Trump. The Republicans would have already rolled out the special prosecutors.
 
MD Planner said:
I agree Comey should have been fired months ago, but now the timing is incredibly suspect. Imagine if Clinton had won and there were even half the accusations there are against Trump. The Republicans would have already rolled out the special prosecutors.
Click to expand...

True.

If it was Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation, Trump should've/could've fired Comey in the first weeks of his Presidency. He waited four months. That clearly indicates to me that this is about the Russia investigation and has nothing to do with Clinton.
 
and.......

Suburb Repairman said:
True.

If it was Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation, Trump should've/could've fired Comey in the first weeks of his Presidency. He waited four months. That clearly indicates to me that this is about the Russia investigation and has nothing to do with Clinton.
Click to expand...

BINGO was his nameo!!
 
You know it's bad when party patsy Richard Burr is looking at Comey for testimony....

I'm fully expecting Trump to be out by the end of the year.
 
Back
Top