Fair enough. I didn't think much of AI initially but it does eliminate the "human error" element in production.

But I do feel that there is some place where the educated and unskilled here. Personally, I think that the rebuilding of our roads could be a fantastic place to start, since we don't have the machinery yet to fully automate the process available on a mass scale.

I remember I met a guy a few semesters ago that was in his late 40s and worked basically as the cleaner of stuff that went wrong, his biggest and most recent project being the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. However, it was after a disaster so it's not exactly like these kinds of people are needed 24/7 around the country.

I never said you were wrong. It's just not pertinent to the discussion at hand, but I guess that was lost on you too

I cant read your fuckin mind terry you say "your being intentionally braindead" it leads me to believe that you think the thing i said is so incredibly false that you cant believe a person with a brain would say it
i am aware that it was not pertinent

I did a research paper on automation and AI in transportation last semester, with a focus on the self driving car industry, and a comparison with the effects of the Gutenberg printing press. Basically, those jobs that are going to be replaced (taxis, shipping, etc) are never going to be opened up again for human workers. This is going to happen in the next 20-40 years (semi-autonomous vehicles are happening now, fully autonomous within 15 or so years at current rate). However, replacing unskilled labor with automation also opens up resources to be used in higher level labor, R&D, and a bunch of other stuff - basically a better use of time and money. This in turn will theoretically be a net gain in many socioeconomic factors, most importantly education, but there are some nitpicky downsides (that I personally think don't come close to outweighing the positives) to the proliferation and integration of fully autonomous vehicles into society as well. We're living in a pretty cool transitional period, but I don't think the issue of globalism taking local jobs away will be as big an issue 30-40 years into the future.

@nub_danish
Sorry, I'll clarify. I think if you want your opinions and thoughts to be taken seriously in a discussion, then you should try to sound like you have something important to say rather than going off on pointless tangents, especially since the topics at hand are already pretty high tension for a lot of people

The NSA does spy on everyone by definition, whether you want to admit it or not. However, the quantity of material they have to sift through is immense, so it doesn't help them to determine when an attack will happen. In all their years of operation, they have not once stopped a terrorist attack. However, they do have the people that commit these atrocities on watch-lists, which accomplishes nothing. The NSA basically follows the "seeing everything, understanding nothing" which, combined with the ease at which its targets could be shifted, makes it an organization that should not exist, in my opinion. Orwell apparently just got the year wrong.

However, I do agree with you that people should trust the police and should report suspicious activity. However, how many calls would the police get per day of "I don't trust my neighbor" which turned out to be false? How many hours of police time would be wasted by doing this? Granted, I have no problem taking away from speed trap time that makes the individual counties money, but I also wonder how many crimes would be prevented if police patrolled instead of sat in speed traps, which, I should point out, is not the officers' fault, it's the people giving the orders telling them to go out and do these speed traps, as they have become a reliable source of revenue.

An idea to prevent the looking into numerous calls would be to have a standard where if neighbors all around the individual were calling in about him then the police would look into it.

In response to your comment about how he "wants to keep the press honest", the way he has acted and spoken has indicated that he wants to reduce freedom of the press. While this is not without precedent even within the U.S. (e.g. the Alien and Sedition Acts) they never ended well, and the presidents behind them are poorly viewed in history. The fact that he also wishes to direct these restrictions towards those who speak out against him is worrisome, as that was the intent behind that freedom in the constitution. I saw a post (not on tftv) saying that we need to trust Trump because he is our President. This is false, and also, not what the founding fathers intended. We have the rights to speak freely carry firearms and have due process and etc. because we need to be able to effectively say that the government is in the wrong. Anyone who removes these rights from us is effectively un-American (unless these rights put us in danger, i.e yelling fire in a crowded theater.).

I believe in the constitution, and as such, I have a problem with our past, current, and future president trying to reduce the rights it provides us. The one exception I will make to this is assault rifles and magazine sizes. If you're military/have military training I have no problem with it, but I (even as someone who enjoys going to shooting ranges) finds them a bit much. I don't see the need for a massive magazine in any shape or form, but I would be fine with assault weapons if and only if the person in possession of the weapon was trained in its use. Other than that, (and even that I'm on the fence about) leave our constitution alone. The NSA is unconstitutional in my eyes, on the grounds of illegal search and seizure, without a warrant and other necessities.

I have read some stupid shit in this thread, much of which probably deserves ire more than this post so sorry Koncept, but this one just flies in the face of any objective evidence. The US is by far the most powerful country in the world by almost any meaningful measure, militarily, culturally, financially. In comparison to preceding decades you have literally no major competitors.

Moscow has peacefully ceded control over 100s of millions of people in eastern Europe in the last 20+ years, it's a shadow of it's former self. Their recently rediscovered taste for military adventurism is nothing to do with receding US power.

China is America's workshop.

Wall Street dominates global finance, the US military is globally unquestionably supreme, US cultural exports are ubiquitous around the world. I find worries about the American position in the world to be bizarre. America calls the tune globally in a much more decisive way than it did during the cold war.

I'm enjoying the irony of people who said Trump and his supporters are anti democracy and wouldn't accept the result rioting in the streets too much

http://imgur.com/gallery/zXlmi

Is there a just-right amount of rioting they should be doing?

I mean I'm enjoying it too much, they shouldn't riot at all
might be a grammatical mistake

It's an ambiguity I am exploiting for a joke

.

I don't get it

.

No I was saying they cherry picked the most fringe and obnoxious elements of his support and promoted them front and center as if they are at all representative of half of the population of the country. They started with a narrative that demonized Trump and anybody who disagreed with them and went looking for anything they could find to make it look like it was true.

Trump won democratic states. States that voted for Obama. These people arent racist, misogynistic facists clamouring for a dictatorship, but if you get your information from places like The Daily Show or MSNBC or CNN you would believe that they are. Now you have millions of salty democrats who are rioting because they legitimately believe Trump wants them all rounded up and gassed and that anybody who voted for Trump must be some goose stepping monster.

Shouting racist and calling people deplorable also isn't a very convincing argument if you want their votes. Try listening to the issues they care about and debating them seriously rather than name calling, people might actually be convinced.

So what you're saying is that it's the news fabricating Trump's far right appeal that has produced an emboldened far right in the wake of his victory, not any real far right appeal he might objectively have, or possibly even deliberately have cultivated. Correct?

Millions of people are rioting and believe that? This seems like it might be a rather unrealistic distortion on your part don't you think? If there were millions of rioters there wouldn't be much of most US cities left to worry about.

Yeah perhaps I worded that poorly. There haven't been millions rioting, but there are for sure significant numbers of democrats who legitimately believe that Trump is a fascist and anybody who supports him must be a racist homophobe. Which obviously isn't true.

Coming from a place where democracy will never be a thing, these democrats rioting because they're butthurt about Trump winning looks like spoiled brats lmao

Like or hate Trump, vote for Hillary is a vote for war.

College students on this message board, who have experienced very little in the world, do not agree with your statement.

A sizeable chunk of the violent rioters are probably hard left anarchists exploiting the situation, some local police have said this, you'd be hard pushed to describe them as democrats.

The peaceful protestors, which form the vast majority, are doing exactly what you're supposed to do in a democracy which is continue to make your points even though the election went against you. The whole purpose of democratic freedom is not to go quietly, and after such a divisive election with such extraordinarily unpopular candidates protests were inevitable whoever won.

Meanwhile the see-saw battle for control of the Trump twitter account between his advisers and himself continues. Last night they were professional protesters (Trump already good for jobs right?) and this morning they're passionate and he understands.

Nothing says peaceful protest like destroying people's property like cars and shop windows and beating up Trump supporters, even though they're rioting in states Hillary won
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/797063198318989312

I agree with a lot if not most points Richard Lewis discusses on why Trump won

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5yZWBWANOE

I'm having difficulty understanding the thought process. The majority are peaceful, a minority are not peaceful, therefore nobody is protesting peacefully? You'll have to indulge my simple minded logic here

Ask yourself this: Would you say the same thing if the roles were reversed and Trump supporters were rioting in the streets, beating up Hillary supporters, sparring with police and breaking people's stuff after the result of the general election? The media would go nuts and it would never be referred to as a 'peaceful protest', but as an attack on democracy. Which is exactly what these whiny shits are doing

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/paul-ryan-says-medicare-privatization-is-on.html

Lol fuck seniors amirite

If it was all of them being violent then I'd say that all of them were not protesting peacefully. If it was a handful being violent I'd say that a handful were spoiling peaceful protests. If the police reported that they were arresting mostly members of fringe groups that had exploited the situation I'd accept their statements at face value until they were proved false.

Don't make the mistake of thinking I have some kind of Democrat/Republican bias in this. Both candidates were horrifying car crashes in a country where Obama showed that it's possible to have a unifying President by winning easily just a few years ago.

I'm not in the media, objectively by any standard these are overwhelmingly peaceful protests. I just don't see the point pretending they are something they are not.

I agree with you, and the points you raise are accurate and fair.
Schweppes is also correct in his statements and you guys do not conflict.

You also need to understand there is a double-standard at work here in this very thread and in the way everything is being portrayed on the news.

Go back in this thread and count up the number of times posters have insinuated that anyone who voted for or supports Trump is a racist. Lumping everyone into the same group (racists) because of a few is exactly the double standard and hypocritical attitude of so many posters in this thread.

It might be worth you while to completely ignore the trolls (obvious who they are) and respond to the people who want to have an actual mature discussion and not an argument. There is a difference.

you realize there's a gradient to racism right?

It isn't like every Trump supporter is wearing a hood but its pretty clear they're far less concerned with racial issues than Dem voters are. Idk how everyone gets their fee fees hurt when someone tells them they're being racist.

racism isn't a group its a character trait that is common among Trump supporters. More white people voted for Trump, more racists voted for Trump, fewer minorities did

Saying the average Trump supporter is an uneducated White guy isn't calling all of them uneducated white guys.

When people are saying Trump supporters are racist as a whole it is because they support policies that reinforce SES divide among races (IE the literal definition of racism). That's a fairly neutral thing on a national scale, since good and bad policies can be racist or not.

Its just pretty likely if you think blacks are icky that you voted for Trump because he keeps being White a good thing

I'm fully aware of the disingenuous nature of the discussion in the vast majority of the thread on various topics, I regard most of it (to borrow a phrase from many a US military misadventure) as a quagmire which is why I try to stick to relatively simple objectively provable points of fact and trimming the hyperbole here and there.

It's a fascinating topic for in depth discussion but I'm not sure the atmosphere here is conducive to a genuinely neutral and constructive exchange of viewpoints.

I don't feel like getting downvoted for saying we shouldn't discriminate against people but whatever

If you want to follow this logic black people shouldn't be allowed to move out of the cities cause they're far more violent
The US allows any religious belief to be held (1st ammendment) even if it is illegal. It doesn't become a problem until people act on those beliefs. This is and always has been the core idea of religious freedom

>First off, explain how we're not a global power

We are. By stamping our feet and ignoring the march of global economics we will give up our place because the US will no longer control most world trade.

If you want your country to matter, you have to adopt globalist thinking. Trying to be competitive as a world power when you have no economic ties to anyone else is impossible

>Next, explain how we would control China with "political and economic leverage" when they are our biggest rival

because if we stopped doing business with china, their economy would collapse. Owing someone a lot of money is just as much their problem as ours. China depends on the US to a massive degree, and that economic dependency ensures peace between the two and in the area. If the US started dropping out of international trade China would have less incentive to comply with US demands because the US wouldn't be the only thing propping up its economy.

Think of it like: If I owe the bank a trillion dollars, who's problem is it?

>So, something that's intended to keep you and I safe, is a limit on religious freedom?

Yes? It makes being Muslim harder than being Christian and treats one religious group favorably compared to another. That's pretty clearly a limit on religious freedom since the US now puts an asterisk on the 1st amendment saying "believe whatever you want (but if you believe the wrong thing you waive your right to privacy)"

>The safety of the people should never be compromised when there is a legitimate threat whose views are extremist and anti-western

some of the core ideas behind the US's founding are based on the idea that individual liberty is more important than societal security. We have several amendments that reinforce this (1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th) are pretty clearly against trading liberty for security.

This is a basic belief of the US and to rescind it would be a huge cultural change. Logical consistency would require giving up things like gun rights or freedom of the press because they can limit national security.