The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Actually yes, you will run out of drinking water if you keep wanting to waste it as much as you want to. A natural system simply does not have the capability to replenish itself at the rate humankind is taking from it.
You won't have to worry about that now, but future generations will.

I know, I know, you don't care about things that don't effect you so I'm not going to bother any further.
I have to go deal with my anxiety for the Star Wars weekend. I don't have time for this bullsh*t.

Actually, that is not true, he cares a great deal about things that don't affect him, like reproductive rights and education

[jelgate]

As you know unless you are old your opinion doesn't matter

[Gatefan1976]

I'm 40, I am sure some call me old

[Coco Pops]

That's what the advancement in technology is for. And the reason the newer models break faster is because someone has to make money of these things.

And you don't view that as morally wrong? I do.

Consider watching this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1j0XDGIsUg

[jelgate]

I'm 40, I am sure some call me old

But you aren't Annoyed old

[Gatefan1976]

And you don't view that as morally wrong? I do.

Consider watching this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1j0XDGIsUg

Morally wrong?
Yes and No. Planned obsolescence is a function of Capitalism, and for good or bad, that is the current state of the world. While the profit motive drives invention, weather it is morally ambiguous is simply a moot point. Example, is it moral to put people out of work because a lightbulb can last 100+ years? In the currently accepted system, the moral answer is no, it's not, manufacturing would stall as it's only dictate would be direct need, and you would destroy the manufacturing base of every nation on the planet.
IF the system were changed, where the profit motive was -not- the driving force of either invention or the "economy", then sure, it would be immoral to do so. For example, you live here, do you buy everything that has the "made in Australia" tag? Your computer, your clothes, your car? Is it -immoral- for you to get 20 dollar jeans rather than 100 dollar ones made here? Of course not, it is simply the reality of the system we live within.

[Gatefan1976]

But you aren't Annoyed old

True.

[Coco Pops]

Morally wrong?
Yes and No. Planned obsolescence is a function of Capitalism, and for good or bad, that is the current state of the world. While the profit motive drives invention, weather it is morally ambiguous is simply a moot point. Example, is it moral to put people out of work because a lightbulb can last 100+ years? In the currently accepted system, the moral answer is no, it's not, manufacturing would stall as it's only dictate would be direct need, and you would destroy the manufacturing base of every nation on the planet.
IF the system were changed, where the profit motive was -not- the driving force of either invention or the "economy", then sure, it would be immoral to do so. For example, you live here, do you buy everything that has the "made in Australia" tag? Your computer, your clothes, your car? Is it -immoral- for you to get 20 dollar jeans rather than 100 dollar ones made here? Of course not, it is simply the reality of the system we live within.

First off you'd have to actually find computer parts made in Australia, which is zero to 1 chance of ever happening. As for clothes they are very hard to find but food items are the only thing I buy that are locally made, and even then the only part that is local is usually the packaging.

[SoulReaver]

Planned obsolescence is a function of Capitalism, and for good or bad, that is the current state of the world. While the profit motive drives invention, weather it is morally ambiguous is simply a moot point. Example, is it moral to put people out of work because a lightbulb can last 100+ years? In the currently accepted system, the moral answer is no

prob is once you go down that road employment can be a justification for many worse things
also depends what sort of planned obsolescence you're talking about - active or passive?

[aretood2]

Lets segment the country up by counties.. Hillary 487 counties nationwide, compared with 2,626 for trump.. THat's over a 6 to 1 ratio.. The ONLY reason she got so many 'popular' votes is cause all those counties SHE won were a lot more populus than the other ones that Trump acquired wins in.
SO are YOU saying that the 2600+ Counties he won, should just 'suck it up and accept' the new results'?

This is total BS. Democracy isn't run by counties, it's run by voters. Considering that there are towns with more people living in them than in many of those 2,626 counties and also considering that many of those counties barely gave their vote to Trump, you're making it out to be like if everyone in a red county voted for Trump. What about the Democrat/Libertarian votes? How about all of those counties in say Utah where Trump barely got 1/3 of the vote but only won thanks to a viable 3 way contest?

When you have to jump through mental hoops to try to make it look like most Americans are Pro-Trump, then any rat with half a brain would be able to smell something cheesy going on.

[Gatefan1976]

prob is once you go down that road employment can be a justification for many worse things
also depends what sort of planned obsolescence you're talking about - active or passive?

I don't disagree with you SR, but I have to acknowledge what exists separate to what -I- might want, and the realities around them. I can argue to change them, but if I ignore them, I am no better than "the other", am I.

[Gatefan1976]

This is total BS. Democracy isn't run by counties, it's run by voters. Considering that there are towns with more people living in them than in many of those 2,626 counties and also considering that many of those counties barely gave their vote to Trump, you're making it out to be like if everyone in a red county voted for Trump. What about the Democrat/Libertarian votes? How about all of those counties in say Utah where Trump barely got 1/3 of the vote but only won thanks to a viable 3 way contest?

When you have to jump through mental hoops to try to make it look like most Americans are Pro-Trump, then any rat with half a brain would be able to smell something cheesy going on.

People don't matter, why do you think citizens united got passed into law?

[Annoyed]

Actually yes, you will run out of drinking water if you keep wanting to waste it as much as you want to. A natural system simply does not have the capability to replenish itself at the rate humankind is taking from it.
You won't have to worry about that now, but future generations will.

I know, I know, you don't care about things that don't effect you so I'm not going to bother any further.

I have to go deal with my anxiety for the Star Wars weekend. I don't have time for this bullsh*t.

Anxiety because a new installment in the SW franchise is coming out?

[Gatefan1976]

Annoyed, what do you think of the EC ditching Trump?
Would you be happy if they did that?

[garhkal]

SB-1070 was unconstitutional as the states do not have the right to pre-empt or overturn federal law (supremacy clause).
As for sanctuary cities, by law they should not exist, however sanctuary cities don't stop federal agents from doing their job -directly-, so it is a little legally murky. For example, if they never ask a person if they are "legal", they are not failing to pass on information that they do not have.

First off 1070 DIDN'T overturn federal law, it ENFORCED IT stricter..
And isn't what these states who are OUTRIGHT declaring themselves to be sanctuary cities/states being even MORE so 'pre-empting/overturning federal law?

As for the IRS, What they did was flat out wrong, 3 people lost their jobs over it, it was investigated by the FBI and it was concluded that no further action was to be taken, and the DOJ went along with it. Personally speaking, I think they should have gone ahead with a legal investigation to settle the question once and for all.

ALL low level people, imo guinnie pigs sacrificed for the higher ups to keep THEIR jobs.

[QUOTE=Gatefan1976;14537565]
It's jackbooted for the exact same reason the actions of the IRS were jackbooted, it's using the law as a political weapon and a violation of public trust. As I have said to you before, I may be "lefty" socially, but there are several occasions where I would side with the right because what they are saying is correct. Wrong is wrong, no matter who pushing it.[/quote\]

What the IRS did was illegal/against the law. What these states are doing is BREAKING The law. SO how is having people go in to ENFORCE the law, making them INTO the IRS??
THAT'S what i am not understanding in your argument GF. Its almost like you are saying "Let these states break the law/ignore the law, cause to go in would make Trump as bad as Obama in having the IRS be politicized...

Which kills your SB 1070 argument (and is exactly what the DOJ used to break it). What is Interesting (to me at least) is that while the supremacy clause allows the fed to create the laws, it is a little more unclear on who's responsibility it is to -enforce- the law. Is it the state's responsibility to pay for the enforcement, or the Fed?

I disagree it kills my argument. I liken it to the Military and its UCMJ/Naval (or army/marines) regulations. What THOSE rules/laws are, are 'gospel'. BUT an individual command can COPY and be stricter in its implementation OF THOSE laws, but they can't be more Lenient than the federal (UCMJ/Navy Regs)..
THE SAME applies to the federal law on immigration imo. A state can enforce those Federal laws MORE STRICTLY, without 'stepping over the toes of the feds/supremacy clause. BUT THEY CAN'T be more lenient than the feds...

There is literally mountains of laws that spring from that one line, that's what you need to dig through.
What's your take on so called anchor babies for example?

Of the western/1st world nations, the USA is one of the FEW countries that 'grants birth right citizenship' to kids born here, EVEN IF BOTH PARENTS are in the country illegally. And imo that is wrong, since the whole argument TO GIVE Birth right citizenship came about from a MISREADING of the 14th amendment in granting citizenship to the offspring of slaves.
IMO To be a US citizen, a kid born in the states should have at LEAST ONE PARENT be a US citizen themselves..

That's what the advancement in technology is for. And the reason the newer models break faster is because someone has to make money of these things.

True dat FH. I remember as a kid my father/mother owning a vaccum cleaner/fridge that they had for OVER 20 years with no issues. Since I've been an adult, i have had to buy a vaccum at least once every 6 years or so, 10 yrs for fridges and such.. They just don't have the SAME quality in longevity they used to..

Annoyed, what do you think of the EC ditching Trump?
Would you be happy if they did that?

No, cause for many of them, they would be violating the law.. And the paltry 1000 buck fine most would get for doing so (or in some cases just up to 1000 bucks) is barely a slap on the wrist for many of them.