posted August 02, 2019 03:54 PM            

as trends shift and technology advances it's pointless to not make those changes

an all out ban would be stupid because of the petrol dollar, but a slow shift makes absolute sense

the reality is other countries are making moves away from that and so are people en masse so it's essentially retarded to not find ways to move forward

a "ban" though would likely consist of a longterm period of adjustment slowly phasing it out while new industries are developed

@shura there are a lot of reasons to be in iraq, one of them is for oil, that being said i don't think it's necessarily wrong for a country to destroy another one in order to build resources for itself and its people

the reality is nature and life are somewhat cold, and staying on top is ultimately always the better choice for a nation and sometimes that's at cost to people outside of it

no one likes saying that or admitting it but that's how it is

ideals have no place in reality particularly when you look at it from the perspective of maintaining power

war is money, and if you look the us has been at war nearly all of its history for that reason there's probably only been about 20 years or so total where there were no major military conflicts, it's something that insignificant in comparison to the entire history of the country

on a human level i mean you have a **** ton of civilians and casualties dying and no one wants to see that **** because they project themselves and their families onto it and obviously the loss of life is sad on an individual level

that doesn't really ultimately matter though

but this isn't even about appealing to those people, most people are largely focused more on syria rather than iraq currently

it's about appealing to people who care about the environment and also to people who are concerned with the forward movement of technology which will ultimately be something that's impossible to hold back given that it increases exponentially with each coming year

posted August 02, 2019 04:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
I doubt it would destroy our economy, just change it

---

a sudden ban would absolutely tank the economy, no way around it, it would have to be a slow shift and then there's still risk

posted August 02, 2019 04:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
I agree the march of progress continues whether people want it to or not, and the market is moving towards different energy sources so thems the breaks

Technology is advancing more and more rapidly and its changing everything

---

exactly though people really should be more cautious about that as well for a lot of reasons

better technology isn't necessarily better quality of life in the end

particularly because more advances mean more ways for those with power to **** over those who lack it, look at how far mass surveillance can go for example

but solely from an economic standpoint a slow move away from fossil fuels is completely necessary yeah, it's an unavoidable reality given the current state of the world

a sudden ban would be completely insane though and would destroy the economy no doubt because of where america's money comes from, but that's only speaking from an american accepting the current balance of power perspective

posted August 02, 2019 06:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
The supply of fossil fuels is nowhere near being depleted. If climate change is a hoax (we are simply putting carbon from the ground and back to where it once was), then why spend trillions for nothing? And if climate change is real--and is caused by human activity--these proposals are admittedly only symbolic with no real beneficial net effect. The Paris Climate Accord would have accomplished nothing, even if everyone complied, which they wouldn't have. Truth is, climate change is all about political control, not "saving" the planet.

---

i actually wasn't talking about global warming, i was referring to **** like how fracking pollutes water supplies and such when i talk about the environment

whether or not global warming is real is actually irrelevant because all that matters is that technology is moving towards alternative sources and people en masse want other things

as other countries move away from it due to beliefs (whether false or not) even if it's all symbolic it's still the trend and without adaptation to current trends in both society and the world at large you're going to see a country tank anyway

if there becomes no market for something then you're ******

so for the sake of discussion let's say you're 100% right about global warming being a political tool, well then it's a political tool that directly affects the things which america is a major producer of and what our economy is largely dependent on

which means clinging to it is like staying on a sinking ship

can't maintain power if the world is changing what having power and control is going to be defined by

you spend the money to maintain power, symbolic or not it's what technology and people demand

because an attack on using natural fuels in other countries will directly affect this one anyway if we continue on this path

belief is more powerful than facts, always will be, so all people need to do is believe in something for it to have an effect

given that situation it's only logical to build in other directions and move forward

also elections are about winning, not about actually implementing the promises made, typically most campaign promises are broken so it's a sound move on that front too

though like i said an outright ban would be unbelievably stupid, but a gradual shift is inevitable and should be jumped on so the country doesn't get left behind as other countries move in a different direction

adaptation to cultural shifts on a global scale is the way to stay on top, digging your heels in and sticking to old ways as they fall apart around you just gets you left behind

posted August 02, 2019 07:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I get what you're saying. I just don't believe the ship is sinking. Some countries might like to move completely away from fossil fuels, but can they actually do so anytime soon? It would appear not. Someday, perhaps. Obama invested (wasted) billions in that concept (such as Solandra), and those companies all went bankrupt.

President Trump actually kept his campaign promises.

---

well that's why i said "phase out" rather than abruptly stop, slow adjustment to see where things lead while simultaneously making people who are worried about global warming happy

it's win/win

like i said technology increases are exponential so wherever we're at isn't indicative of what can be accomplished 10 years from now on a level we can necessarily comprehend and technology itself is moving in a different direction so a gradual shift is the best way to deal with it

saying something drastic like "ban" just gets attention and votes, which is what matters

not all of them, last i checked clinton was still walking free

posted August 02, 2019 08:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
"Lock her up" was hyperbole. But some of her associates are heading that way.

---

posted August 02, 2019 08:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
"Lock her up" was hyperbole. But some of her associates are heading that way.

---

i was joking, but technically he hasn't fully delivered all his promises either

that's not even important though, because delivering your campaign promises is irrelevant to winning which is what actually matters also there's always red tape that someone needs to get around

you take a strong stance so that when you deliver some of it you can blame the rest on red tape but still look like you're doing all you can

promise higher than what you can give to get attention because people respond better to stronger sounding candidates and confidence

that's why **** like the phrase "ban all" is more appealing than "try to phase out" followed by a long explanation

even though you could actually implement a phase out policy in place of a ban and make people equally happy while simultaneously doing the smarter thing

people don't want to hear some long winded **** though they zone out, have to keep things simple, confident, and strong

which is what biden is likely attempting to do rather than actually making a move that would tank the economy on that large of a scale so quickly

say "ban" then give an 8 year plan as an attempt to secure a second term when already in office is the logical way that **** would go

it's just good strategy, and people will take some progress as a sign you're delivering even if the progress never reaches the desired end

i'm personally not a supporter of the system in any sense at all, regardless of who's in office because it's all ineffectual and largely ********

the reality is the system limits actual progress, so it doesn't matter how much anyone promises you're likely to still have nothing at the end of it

an actually good leader at this point would be someone who ripped it all down and trump isn't going to do that

that being said he sets an interesting stage and puts the potential for it out there

because the climate for civil unrest the division him being in office has caused is a possibly beautiful thing if it hits a tipping point

posted August 02, 2019 08:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
And many of trump's associates are already there.

---

posted August 02, 2019 09:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
President Trump did rip it all down--the deep state, the new world order, globalism. We don't want anarchy.

---

he hasn't ripped it all down it's all still in place, more people are aware of certain things but that's not the same as tearing something down

reality is things will still operate very much the same

also trump is deeply tied to israel which is problematic for a lot of reasons so i don't see him as a champion of zero corruption here just being real

anyway anarchy is a transitory state that's necessary in some cases, it's impossible for it to actually last because people will always want power and others will follow out of a need for order

however when something becomes too big for small changes to fix it then what you need to do is destroy it completely and totally and then let the chaos that remains sort itself out

it's just part of a natural cycle, no system lasts forever and sometimes things just need to burn so something can come out of the ashes

it's not something that people like, but sometimes it's what gets **** done in a more positive way in the future

think of it like the 8 year plan i mentioned

posted August 02, 2019 09:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Yet not a one for collusion or conspiracy with Russia.

---

the russia thing was a media **** storm for ratings and attention, and it got them

the fact that it went the way its gone really should've just shed light on the reality of the media and news as a marketable way of making money rather than actually telling people anything

it's largely just a tool, and unfortunately not as entertaining as egyptian news at all or that one north korean lady...

it also shows just how much saying something regardless of whether or not it's factual will affect people's views to such a huge extent

posted August 02, 2019 09:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
You are missing the forest for the trees. The plan was globalism. President Trump crushed that. America IS forever. If you are waiting for chaos, you better bring some biscuits. You will have a long wait.

---

not at all, the reality is trump may as well be sucking netanyahu off and israel is corrupt as hell, but many trump supporters are turning a blind eye to that

america definitely isn't forever, no empire is, change is inevitable and natural because everything works in cycles

if not in your life time or mine then somewhere further down the line

trump hasn't crushed globalism or the idea of it on any level, as long as people with an idea exist then the potential for it to take on a life of its own will always exist that's the nature of reality

by bringing an idea onto this plane you give it the chance for it to take hold, once it's out there it can gain momentum at any given point

ideas hold more power than the people who bring them forward always, and he hasn't destroyed any ideas

**** many people in this country dont even support him so there's that too

what he has done is create an environment of unrest that has the potential to grow with this coming election on both sides of the division moreso than how it wouldve gone if clinton had won

i wouldn't say i needed to wait for chaos anyway, look at the state of the world, that exists regardless

i'm just being honest about what it would actually take for real change

as for what the governments the world over agree on america has both enemies and allies, not just a bunch of countries that want it to stay as is or some **** lol and that becomes largely irrelevant anyway because what the country is currently is far removed even from the principles it was founded on in the first place

posted August 02, 2019 09:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
You anarchists are certainly entertaining. I'll give you that.

---

technically not an anarchist given that i acknowledge it as a transitory phase rather than a system that's capable of existing longterm

i think all ideologies are ultimately flawed and don't work in reality which is why things get torn down and rebuilt over time

it's a futile natural cycle of people trying to improve something that's impossible to actually get right because all power is about enforcing will on people who don't necessarily want that in the way it's done

like i said there will always be people who seek power and those who fall in line seeking order and needing to be led, that's human nature

so to call myself an anarchist when i recognize that reality wouldn't make much sense to me really

do i think limited government is ideal? absolutely

do i think no government at all is possible? not at all because it goes against human nature to allow that to exist for an extended period of time

saying i think things need to be torn down and rebuilt because they're too far gone and accepting that the consequence of that would be chaotic is just being comfortable with reality, which is a little different than being an anarchist

posted August 02, 2019 09:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I do agree with you on one thing: Change is inevitable. I never said it wasn't.

---