Trump Administration Predictions (2 Viewers)

[Isaac]

For me the goal of mankind is to be in perfect relationship with and glorifying God. That won't happen in its entirety until we are with Him in eternity, but - we can achieve parts of it now

 

[Pat Hartman]

Have we seen any positive evolution of homo sapiens since the days we lived in caves? We have acquired a wealth of knowledge including how to destroy the Earth, our home, as well as each other, but have the corporal "we" improved? We're taller and larger but that is more a function of better nutrition. We are currently filling our bodies with poisons of all kinds indirectly through our food chain and directly via "medicines" we don't actually need which are forced on us by big pharma's success in lobbying Congress. The hormones we give to chickens to fatten their breasts are making our little girls AND boys grow boobs. We won't even talk about polluting our environment. We have an obesity epidemic because our processed food contains excessive amounts sugar whether it is sweet or savory and our children's brains are rotting from their addiction to their phones and their complete lack of physical exercise while the teacher's union lobbies to lower the testing "standards" to hide what's going on in our schools. Our young adults are killing themselves with drugs provided by China and Mexico. Looks to me like we are committing suicide as a race. Some way to evolve.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Some way to evolve.

Actually, this is part of my point. If we had NOT developed a welfare-oriented society, survival of the fittest would be fully operational. We have blunted Nature's most powerful tools to assure continued evolution and replaced them with other kinds of tools.

Have we seen any positive evolution of homo sapiens since the days we lived in caves?

Yes, actually. This is fairly recent (in evolutionary time frame).

Sherpas Evolved to Live and Work at Altitude

The Nepali ethnic group handles oxygen more efficiently, allowing them to more easily live in the mountains

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Isaac]

Have we seen any positive evolution of homo sapiens since the days we lived in caves? We have acquired a wealth of knowledge including how to destroy the Earth, our home, as well as each other, but have the corporal "we" improved? We're taller and larger but that is more a function of better nutrition. We are currently filling our bodies with poisons of all kinds indirectly through our food chain and directly via "medicines" we don't actually need which are forced on us by big pharma's success in lobbying Congress. The hormones we give to chickens to fatten their breasts are making our little girls AND boys grow boobs. We won't even talk about polluting our environment. We have an obesity epidemic because our processed food contains excessive amounts sugar whether it is sweet or savory and our children's brains are rotting from their addiction to their phones and their complete lack of physical exercise while the teacher's union lobbies to lower the testing "standards" to hide what's going on in our schools. Our young adults are killing themselves with drugs provided by China and Mexico. Looks to me like we are committing suicide as a race. Some way to evolve.

I felt about the same way, until (on a dare from my brother, who is about half-conservative and half-liberal, maybe even 2/3 conservative on issues, but who thinks I am just a little bit too indoctrinated with right wing stuff) - to read the book PROGRESS by Johan Norberg. I took him up on it and came out of it quite cheerful. On most major metrics that can be measured we are better off than we used to be IF you want to limit yourself to his metrics, which is and should be a subject of robust debate, but at least the book cheered me up a bit by quoting a bunch of stuff about deaths from Diseases, deaths from Violence, deaths from Starvation, Climate pollution (the least good but still supposedly improved), Education and Persecution and a host of others.

I still feel that the somewhat-more ethereal stuff is very important too, and unmeasureable. Something about the "good" when children obeyed their parents and parents took care of their children and marriages were for life and sexual adventures were for marriage and hence there was something special about them so abortions were hardly needed, and people generally had more exercise & honor and patriotism - many areas we could say are going down, but his book did cheer me a bit if you so need or can use

 

[Thales750]

Completely agree with you. Musk needs to stand down in recognition of the fact that he can contribute with some good ideas, but he is not running things nor was elected. He is embarassing not just himself but those of us who root for him

Two really good ones in a row. Yeah, I have been doing some thinking myself.

I think maybe I will tune down some of rhetoric on my post, and be a little less Michael Moore, and a little more Dale Carnegie.

This is kind of a safe place, it has allowed me to exaggerate some of my thoughts. Or, at least, minimize my normal propensity to over filter.
In the Texas Real World, where I have been designing beach houses for millionaires or writing databases for Construction Companies and Chemical Plants, I certainly have to watch what I say.

Of course FB is like taking out a neon sign. Way too many of my family, friends, and customers, can see me there. That left this, and I ran into a group of verbal Conservatives willing to go down this rabbit hole with me.

Underlying all of this last 2 months of this irrelevant arguing, was two things: one it was safe, and two, we are coming to the end of the American Hegemony. What lies ahead? No one really knows.

Like Einstein said:
"Our thinking has brought us to a place where our thinking will no longer suffice".
Or, Dr. Alan Grant from Jurassic Park:
"The world is changing so fast, we are all just trying to keep up".

I watched the biography of Theodore Roosevelt on Prime the last couple of evenings. it's funny how people think the things that are happening now are all brand-new. And here a Republican created the Progressive Party in America.

 

[Thales750]

@Thales750

Got you on this one. You have confused goals with success. Evolution says that, based on survival instincts, EVERYONE - no exceptions, not even you - is going to endeavor to accumulate / concentrate assets, wealth, etc. to themselves. Some of us will be more ethical than others. Some of us will crush our enemies. Others will gang up with those who have similar non-conflicting goals as we have. But survival of the fittest says not everyone will succeed. Your complaint about the "ruling class" is actually that they are successful at ruling, whereas you are not. THAT is what is underneath all your sniping and grousing.

You are assuming, when maybe you should be listening. And, once again, you offer veiled insults. Survival of the fittest in it's purest form ended when the first women invented agriculture.
As far as the the most fit to rule, maybe they are. But why should the mases bow down to them when we don't have to. Why should we allow them to own our government, just because they do? Survival of the fittest, as you are so willing to extoll, can just as easily come from the down trodden and their willingness and determination to destroy what the powerful have built.

Surely you must see that as a righteous path if we are strong enough to tear it down, then it deserves to be torn down.
My favorite of all Presidents was Theodore Roosevelt. He lead the tear down the great capitalist organizations in America and paved the way for the Great Middle Class in the 20th. I have no jealousy of the ultra wealthy.

One might wonder what is in it for you to give them such unrelinquished support.

 

[Thales750]

And it's kind of funny if you think about it.

Up until recently, the 'working class' tended to support Democrats. They were quite fine being the elite class until the working class started to support Trump. Now all of a sudden Democrats have invented this concept of Trump being "fascist", even though zero Gen Z even know what the word means .... in order to make it seem like conservatives are the 'ruling class'.

last time I checked, anyone could join the so-called 'ruling class'. You just need to have the balls and determination to get up in the morning and make the right decisions - the game is open to anyone, and if you go it sequentially and step by step, the buy in isn't that high.

what I'm about to say might upset some people, but here goes: In my experience, people who claim there is a 'ruling class', and viciously villify it, usually have made some bad decisions that resulted in their having limited success. Deep inside they know what I'm saying is true - anyone can be successful - but psychologically and spiritually it's much easier to blame the idea of an exclusive ruling class for one's own lack of achievement.
I don't, I know any "ruling ability" I lack is a lack of my own determination - because my brother grew up in the same minimum wage home I did, and is now a CEO.

I've been an entrepreneur, my entire life. I don't have to "look deep" for my lack of judgment. When I refer to the ruling class, I'm mostly thinking about how wealth at that level is not about money, it's about a particular type of greed. The kind of greed that allows the lobbyist to write our laws. It's about laws that protect the monopolies. That term is a little outdated now-a-days because modern anti-trust activities are hidden within wheels.

The real facts are that we have been heading back to a country that was similar to the robber baron era. Where the people at the bottom have no possibility of moving up. Oh occasional person does, but for the masses, not so much.

So to counter you assertion, why do so many people that have jobs, so intent on supporting the creation of billionaires that control government. when in fact they are the furthest removed from being capitalist as possible.

Take Doc for instance, didn't he work for the Navy all those years? I have a lot of government friends that somehow see themselves as capitalists.

And, I agree with you totally, the Dems have lost their way. Except have they? Two side of the same coin they are. Check out that Biography of Teddy Roosevelt on Prime. It is exactly where we are minus the WOKE crap.

WOKE, that's a whole other unbelievable story.

 

[Thales750]

I felt about the same way, until (on a dare from my brother, who is about half-conservative and half-liberal, maybe even 2/3 conservative on issues, but who thinks I am just a little bit too indoctrinated with right wing stuff) - to read the book PROGRESS by Johan Norberg. I took him up on it and came out of it quite cheerful. On most major metrics that can be measured we are better off than we used to be IF you want to limit yourself to his metrics, which is and should be a subject of robust debate, but at least the book cheered me up a bit by quoting a bunch of stuff about deaths from Diseases, deaths from Violence, deaths from Starvation, Climate pollution (the least good but still supposedly improved), Education and Persecution and a host of others.

I still feel that the somewhat-more ethereal stuff is very important too, and unmeasureable. Something about the "good" when children obeyed their parents and parents took care of their children and marriages were for life and sexual adventures were for marriage and hence there was something special about them so abortions were hardly needed, and people generally had more exercise & honor and patriotism - many areas we could say are going down, but his book did cheer me a bit if you so need or can use

In many ways we are living in the best of times. And, we are on the precipice of greatness never dreamed of before.

 

[Thales750]

As far as @Thales750 and @Isaac go - I find both have dogmatic simplistic explanations which seldom hold up to examination. But then I find that on so many watercooler topics.

Please feel welcome to counter any of my dogmatic and simplistic explanations. Years ago, I knew a guy, I was living with his daughter at the time.
He was an actual rocket scientist, well engineer actually. He headed up the space flight simulation program at NASA for Singer Link, (that's right, the sewing machine folks) Anyway, out of the 700 or so folks that worked at Singer, in the early 80s, none of them could beat him at Chess.

Nor could I, but I still played him consistently for the whole time I was with his daughter. And, you know what, I learned how to beat him. So please, challenge whatever I say that is dogmatic, or simplistic, and I will appreciate the lesson.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Of course FB is like taking out a neon sign.

When I was working with the U.S. Navy, their annual "security refresher training" emphasized that FB was one of the worst things to join (as opposed to tech forums such as AWF) because it lulls you into a false sense of security or perhaps comfort is a better word. People who reveal too much on FB usually get visits from nefarious people with burglar tools and sticky fingers. Gee, grandma, do you think it was a good idea to publish our vacation plans?

As far as the the most fit to rule, maybe they are. But why should the mases bow down to them when we don't have to. Why should we allow them to own our government, just because they do?

And again, you missed the point. It ISN'T and NEVER WAS that they were sociologically fit to rule. It was that they were successful at achieving that status. It is not that they wanted to rule. It is that they DO have that level of influence. You don't want them to own the government? Then step up to the plate. Run for office. Or start up a news outlet that allows you to express your beliefs over candidate fitness.

We don't hear much about Larry Ellison any more as he ages (now 80 yrs old). When I was still working with the Navy, he was - to be more or less gentle - was verging on being a schmuck. He became powerful, not solely because he was smart, but because he was at the right place at the right time with the right idea. His control over JAVA was constantly a thorn in our sides because of his stiff license fees. Or look at Bill Gates. He was a bright guy but no where near genius. He's not so fantastic now, but again he SUCCEEDED in setting up a business with a lot of influence. Because he was there and actively participated.

It is NEVER about "deserve". It is never about "want". It is always about "did it." I think you and I would agree that quite a few senior politicians up to and including presidents really shouldn't have been in office (from both sides of the aisle). But as I said in a past post, when you are "in the game" then you have to play the players who suited up and came onto the field. We can't elect someone who won't run.

To at least some degree, I think that part of our current political problem is that the really good politicians want to keep a lower profile because they saw the sniping (figurative AND literal) that have been aimed at senior politicians since Ronnie Reagan. THEY are the smart ones, perhaps hoping to wield just a skosh more persuasion than the next guy/gal without sticking their head up in the crossfire. Influencing from behind the scenes, perhaps, but influencing nonetheless.

 

[Isaac]

Please feel welcome to counter any of my dogmatic and simplistic explanations. Years ago, I knew a guy, I was living with his daughter at the time.
He was an actual rocket scientist, well engineer actually. He headed up the space flight simulation program at NASA for Singer Link, (that's right, the sewing machine folks) Anyway, out of the 700 or so folks that worked at Singer, in the early 80s, none of them could beat him at Chess.

Nor could I, but I still played him consistently for the whole time I was with his daughter. And, you know what, I learned how to beat him. So please, challenge whatever I say that is dogmatic, or simplistic, and I will appreciate the lesson.

That statement about dogma and simplicity doesn't bother me at all, partly because if I were to be 'accused' of anythings, I'd be relatively happy for them to be dogma and simplicity! And partly because I know that most of the stuff I assert end up in the same category of debate - I'll throw out an opinion that can't really be proven or disproven, and someone else will try to 'disprove' it through 'studies', which makes little sense to me, as a study can't disprove an opinion and many studies quoted set about to prove a biased opinion in the first place, not ironically. That's probably where the 'up to examination' comes from.

If anything I resolve to be an even simpler person in 2025 - with purer dogma

 

[Thales750]

That statement about dogma and simplicity doesn't bother me at all, partly because if I were to be 'accused' of anythings, I'd be relatively happy for them to be dogma and simplicity! And partly because I know that most of the stuff I assert end up in the same category of debate - I'll throw out an opinion that can't really be proven or disproven, and someone else will try to 'disprove' it through 'studies', which makes little sense to me, as a study can't disprove an opinion and many studies quoted set about to prove a biased opinion in the first place, not ironically. That's probably where the 'up to examination' comes from.

If anything I resolve to be an even simpler person in 2025 - with purer dogma

To thine ownself be true, and all that.

 

[Pat Hartman]

On most major metrics that can be measured we are better off than we used to be IF you want to limit yourself to his metrics, which is and should be a subject of robust debate, but at least the book cheered me up a bit by quoting a bunch of stuff about deaths from Diseases, deaths from Violence, deaths from Starvation, Climate pollution (the least good but still supposedly improved), Education and Persecution and a host of others.

That isn't evolution. It is man learning about his environment and learning how to control it. We have lots of cases where animals are shown to have learned how to use tools and the have simplistic ability to communicate with each other. The most amazing tool use I've seen is a fish that has huge front teeth. The fish picks up clams and bangs them on rocks or coral to break open the shell so it can eat the contents. Members of the ape family, use rocks to open nuts and youngsters adopt sticks and treat them as a human child would a baby doll. Due to less sea ice, one group of polar bears has learned to hunt beluga whales from partially submerged offshore rocks.

If the earth's climate is changing to something we cannot survive, can we evolve? Maybe not fast enough physically, but we are capable of learning how to live underground if the need arises or we can board a spaceship and head for the stars. Some even think that's how humans got here to begin with.

Evolution is about survival of the fittest. Our brains and opposable thumbs give us a huge advantage over every other species that has ever existed. We don't necessarily have to adapt physically to succeed when we can use our brains to control our environment to some degree. We didn't have to grow wings to spread across the oceans and around the world. We invented ships and then flying machines.

 

[Thales750]

When I was working with the U.S. Navy, their annual "security refresher training" emphasized that FB was one of the worst things to join (as opposed to tech forums such as AWF) because it lulls you into a false sense of security or perhaps comfort is a better word. People who reveal too much on FB usually get visits from nefarious people with burglar tools and sticky fingers. Gee, grandma, do you think it was a good idea to publish our vacation plans?

I simply maintain that if we can tear down their institutions and take their wealth, then they deserve it. According to your manifesto. And if we can do the same as the founding fathers, and the early 20th century government to work together to break up the ultra rich's wealth machines, than more power to us.

 

[Isaac]

That isn't evolution. It is man learning about his environment and learning how to control it. We have lots of cases where animals are shown to have learned how to use tools and the have simplistic ability to communicate with each other. The most amazing tool use I've seen is a fish that has huge front teeth. The fish picks up clams and bangs them on rocks or coral to break open the shell so it can eat the contents. Members of the ape family, use rocks to open nuts and youngsters adopt sticks and treat them as a human child would a baby doll. Due to less sea ice, one group of polar bears has learned to hunt beluga whales from partially submerged offshore rocks.

If the earth's climate is changing to something we cannot survive, can we evolve? Maybe not fast enough physically, but we are capable of learning how to live underground if the need arises or we can board a spaceship and head for the stars. Some even think that's how humans got here to begin with.

Evolution is about survival of the fittest. Our brains and opposable thumbs give us a huge advantage over every other species that has ever existed. We don't necessarily have to adapt physically to succeed when we can use our brains to control our environment to some degree. We didn't have to grow wings to spread across the oceans and around the world. We invented ships and then flying machines.

Agreed, I didn't really mean to be tying it to evolution, which I don't believe as having anything to do with the origins of mankind in the first place unless God allowed some of it as part of his process.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

unless God allowed some of it as part of his process.

Isaac, I've had this discussion before with others. If you are going the God route then go all the way.

To say that God DID NOT make our presence on this planet LOOK LIKE evolution did it would be to implicitly limit your God's powers. Did you really want to do that? Because there is more positive evidence for evolution than for many other scientific principles in other disciplines. Evolution has literally MILLIONS of pieces of evidence that, when analyzed via genome analysis, will fill in and mesh with our cousins and ancestors. That's how we know the order of certain species... because we can see the genetic variations that led from one to the other. That's how we know that man and monkeys are cousins on the evolutionary time frame. That evidence would be something done by your God. Do you not believe that fossils represent animals made by God?

However, now I must apologize because I see that this discussion has hijacked the thread.

 

[Isaac]

Isaac, I've had this discussion before with others. If you are going the God route then go all the way.

To say that God DID NOT make our presence on this planet LOOK LIKE evolution did it would be to implicitly limit your God's powers. Did you really want to do that? Because there is more positive evidence for evolution than for many other scientific principles in other disciplines. Evolution has literally MILLIONS of pieces of evidence that, when analyzed via genome analysis, will fill in and mesh with our cousins and ancestors. That's how we know the order of certain species... because we can see the genetic variations that led from one to the other. That's how we know that man and monkeys are cousins on the evolutionary time frame. That evidence would be something done by your God. Do you not believe that fossils represent animals made by God?

However, now I must apologize because I see that this discussion has hijacked the thread.

I'm OK with God having 'started' everything and then allowed evolution to take its course, I just struggle with believing that all these processes came without a intelligent designer.

 

[Pat Hartman]

To say that God DID NOT make our presence on this planet LOOK LIKE evolution did it would be to implicitly limit your God's powers. Did you really want to do that? Because there is more positive evidence for evolution than for many other scientific principles in other disciplines. Evolution has literally MILLIONS of pieces of evidence that, when analyzed via genome analysis, will fill in and mesh with our cousins and ancestors. That's how we know the order of certain species... because we can see the genetic variations that led from one to the other. That's how we know that man and monkeys are cousins on the evolutionary time frame. That evidence would be something done by your God. Do you not believe that fossils represent animals made by God?

The concept of God and Intelligent Design can be very broadly interpreted. What we are doing today to manipulate the genome of plants and animals is terrifying in its implications. We have no idea of the downstream implications of what we are doing. What could possibly go wrong? Jurassic Park gives you a clue The scientists who cloned the dinosaurs never understood the frog DNA they used to fill in the gaps. The book makes the actual problem clearer. I don't know anyone who "got it" from the movie. But the species of frog they chose had the ability to change sex if there became an imbalance in the community. Since the scientists only cloned females on the theory they would be easier to control, they never thought about what could happen if some of those females became males and impregnated the females. Then the computer "bug" was to "know" there were 8 of species A in the pen and to stop counting when it got to 8. They were only worried about losing an animal, not breeding new ones. So, if the code had counted all of each type and then compared to the expected number, they would have realized immediately that the clones were somehow breeding. So, the disaster was caused by incomplete information regarding the frog AND a computer bug

 

[Thales750]

I'm OK with God having 'started' everything and then allowed evolution to take its course, I just struggle with believing that all these processes came without a intelligent designer.

I think God lives in the little pieces, the Universe is God, and our brains are an antenna to the divine.

 

[Thales750]

Back to predictions.
The attack on small business, got a new champion today. Net Nutrality was struck down.