monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

That wall was to keep people in, do you realize the differences?

So does that mean you're ok with organized crime using human beings, including children, as mules to swallow drug balloons to bring to rich 'free' people in the US who pay top dollar?

What I don't understand is why do you care more about comparing the US with the GDR than you do about poor migrants being exploited for their bodies by organized crime?

So much media blaming of the Trump administration for children detained at the border and no blaming of organized crime for exploiting children as a method for triggering catch-and-release policies that prevent mules from being detained until they pass their shipment.

There are organizations and agencies to deal with crime and human trafficking already in place.

And they do not need any help? Do you want to protect children or not?

The thing about politics is, American voters are not going to put up with power shortages or rolling blackouts.

I really don't need to convince environmental extremists of anything. If renewables fail to meet energy demand, the voters will insist that the rest of the power is generated somehow. It might be coal. It might be nuclear. It might be fracked petroleum products. Regardless of the method, the power will be generated.

If environmentalists try to stand in the way of that, they'll lose.

If the public don't become environmentalists and put effort into changing their own behavior, they'll lose. Government and industry are not going to be able to protect them from themselves otherwise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46757759<br />

The public won't lose. What will happen is, the necessary power will be generated and the environmentalists will not be able to stop it from happening. If it ends up being coal, then that's just what will happen.

That will only get better before 2020.

Hating the man largely responsible for that is petty and stupid. America and Americans are what matters.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/maga_first_real_us_household_income_gain_since_2000_.html#.XC883YL0s6Q.twitter

Maybe, but in the long run they are making it worse for themselves and their offspring by reinforcing a pattern of shirking responsibility and prioritizing the wrong things.

You see, things are good when we have a sincere culture of progress; not just political/social progress, but also technological progress, and moral progress. That means that when science identifies environmental problems and unsustainabilities, we work to understand those and put efforts into solutions. If sacrifices are required, we talk about how to make those sacrifices in the way that is least painful, not reject them by blaming 'environmentalists' who won't whitewash energy they can't conscionably justify.

It has been so long since the public has put good faith effort into doing the right thing that I'm not sure many people even grasp the concept of how to do it. The culture has created a model where salespeople manipulate in order to make money and achieve management's goals to serve investors. So much honesty has been lost, maybe it's not possible to get it back. If not, that's another reason the public will lose.

So it's really not just about the energy waste and fuels. It's really about something bigger, the loss of good faith in moral progress in society; and that has worse consequences than blackouts or wearing coats indoors in the winter. It is the cause of everything from terrorism to hate and it's a high price to pay for liberal energy use and anti-environmentalism/anti-austerity.

That tells me that he is scared of Islam and the possible terror that it will inspire when the little Muhammad's hear this. But you support terror by enabling Islamists in your own country.

The good news is that has never happened and is never going to happen. There is no such thing as a "carrying capacity" for an engineering species. The planet could easily support 100 times its present human population, the whole thing is a question of infrastructure.The only problem in the picture is the Malthusians and greentards seeking to impoverish the world for the greater glory of "Gaia(TM)....

I won't say that you're completely wrong, but I don't think you're thinking it through far enough. I say this because what you're describing is something I've thought of a lot. Please bare with me while I give you my take:

The first thing you should do is consider that Earth has an established bio-geological system that's been developed and honed throughout its existence. Life's evolution is basically a process of long-term engineering where things that aren't sustainable perish and those that are still managing to operate sustainably within the larger system don't. So far, nothing has totally undermined the biosphere as a whole and reset it to start again from scratch, as far as we know anyway.

So when you think about things like desalination engineering, for example, there is a natural system for that. Sunlight is warming up ocean water and causing it to evaporate, which 'pumps' it uphill where it rains down to form all the fresh surface water, underground aquifers, etc. Knowing that nature is already desalinating water on such a large scale, tell me why it is that humans think about desalinating more instead of using the system that's already in place more efficiently?

Likewise, Earth has a fusion nuclear reactor that warms it up during the day, and it has night and winter to block out energy from that fusion reactor and allow cooling to happen. Day and night and summer and winter are effective heating and cooling systems that facilitate the survival of all species that have survived to the present day; so why are those inadequate for humans?

Now think about Earth's energy budget. You say there are no limits to what can be engineered. But look at what chlorophyll really does. Green is the most abundant frequency of sunlight, so trees and plants have actually evolved to reflect energy away more than absorbing it. Why? Because evaporation causes death and death prevents reproduction and thus survival. So Earth has actually been evolving to protect life from a hyperabundance of natural solar energy that bombards it.

Now look at what happens as a result of the energy that's not reflected away: it causes evaporation. Evaporation lifts water up into the sky and then drops it down with all the gravitational impact that was put into it to lift it up. Just like if you pick up a bowling ball and drop it on your foot, all the energy you put into lifting up the bowling ball goes into smashing your foot. It's the same with the water cycle, which causes weathering and erosion with all the energy that it absorbs from the sunlight that's not reflected away.

In addition to a water cycle, we have a carbon cycle. The carbon cycle is more complex but it works in a similar way. CO2 doesn't condense like water so its precipitation must be catalyzed. Photosynthetic plants do this so that carbon can condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere. Then animals and other consumers eat and process the plant sugars, fats, etc. into further biological products. So just as the water cycle precipitates and evaporates a lot of water that doesn't make it into underground aquifers, the carbon cycle re-evaporates a lot of CO2 back into the atmosphere and only captures a fraction of that to build up long-term fossil-fuel reservoirs

So now, you're talking about engineering additions to the water and carbon cycles that absorb more energy from the sun and/or make, use, and store more energy using other sources. Then, you want to intensify these cycles so there's more weathering and erosion from more energy. It's like you want to take Niagara Falls and add energy to it by pumping it twice as high or higher and then let it all fall back down and smash up the rocks below and wash them away to the ocean with that much more power.

So if you accelerate Earth's energy cycles in this way and thus intensify weathering and erosion, are you then also going to rebuild the land by dredging up mud from the ocean and piling it up on land? Or do you just want to build a lot of boats and ocean platforms to live on, like in the movie WaterWorld?

The more artificial industrial engineering you introduce into the biosphere, the more natural processes you overpower and have to replace. It is like taking a human body and replacing all the appendages and organs with artificial parts and systems. Do you think such an evolving cyborg will be healthier and fitter than a natural human body? Would you want to be the guinea pig and try it?

What I have learned from all this comparison of artificial engineering with the long-term evolution of self-sustaining natural systems is that we should have more respect and appreciation for the natural systems. Yes, it is good that we have developed the intelligence and skill and drive to engineer artificial systems where needed, but we should put just as much intelligence, skill, and drive/effort into minimizing the impact and footprint of our artificial systems in order to preserve as much of the long-term self-sustaining natural systems of the planet as possible.

Don't you agree that there is value in preserving nature? Don't you think human engineers still have a lot to learn from (dare I say it?) God's engineering? Can't we use our intelligence and skill to build more effective technologies that use less resources and displace less nature instead of more? Can't you see the benefit of incorporating natural 'technologies' into the 'infrastructure' that will support as many humans as necessary?

If so, I think what you'll find is that more human lives can ultimately be supported by minimizing per capita impact on the environment/resources and displacement of nature than by overdoing it.

Catherine Fitts is a former director of HUD and was a chief financial advisor to the Clinton administration. Here ( starting around 17:30 in this video) an interviewer asks her to describe the dem party and explain why they are so totally against anything resembling border security. Her reply doesn't contain anything anything which an alert person couldn't have guessed or figured out on their own, but to hear something like this straight from the horse's mouth so to speak, is pretty startling:

Sorry about being slow getting back to this one, intelligent posts like that are sort of rare here....

The main thing you're looking at somewhat the wrong way is that in real life, it is precisely the places which lack sufficient technology and infrastructure that you see all the ecological disasters.

I'm not advocating that we double or triple the world's human population. I am saying that we cause more harm and grief with the globalist/green "austerity" programs than the extra people ever would.

There are a few other things you're missing as well. You are starting with a sort of an evolutionist paradigm and evolution is now totally discredited, and there is a sort of a green/Gaia-worshiping paradigm which says that what we see in nature is always good/useful/beneficial. That also is wrong.

The DNA/RNA information code which is the basis for all life is plainly the work of a single pair of hands and most people refer to the owner of that pair of hands as 'God'. Nonetheless when you get to some point a few tens of thousands of years back, what you see is just as plainly not the work of a single pair of hands.

A supposedly omniscient God would not need to go through forty or fifty species of elephants or horses to get to the one he wanted, nor would a supposedly loving God create biting flies, mosquitoes, ticks, chiggers, fleas, wasps, hornets, or any of the other myriad creatures of Pandora's box.

Somewhere back a few tens of thousands of years ago, the engineering and re-engineering of complex life forms had become a cottage industry with more than one pair of hands involved, and at least a few of whatever or whoever was doing that, had bad intentions. There is no reason to want to worship the person or whatever who created fleas or biting flies.

We are just now starting to have some of the same kinds of powers and we should in fact use them to finish the job of cleaning up this planet which Cro Magnon man started by eliminating the Neanderthal and a number of other creatures which constituted extreme dangers to humans.

There is NO evidence that anything happened the way g.snake thinks it did or on his timeline. Pure airy-fairy fictionalizing.

None on Trump either.

snakkke gets entranced by a new high-tech conspiracy theory, but still it's a conspiracy theory.

gibberish

moeller doesn't seem to agree with you, and he's got the string of indictments and convictions to back him up. Neither do quite a number of state AGs..