Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

US Elections 2020


Recommended Posts

On 9/29/2019 at 6:35 AM, Papi said:

In the end, people will believe what they want to believe.  Nothing anyone says here is going to change the minds of people like Almagnus.

Show me actual data (and not propaganda) backed by solid reasoning and you can change my mind. Also... 

On 9/29/2019 at 6:35 AM, Papi said:

There is no compromise, there is no middle ground, and sadly, there seems to be no reconciliation (in general).  I'm almost scared to see what happens to people like him if Trump doesn't get re-elected.

What did Doro say? 

On 9/29/2019 at 6:35 AM, Papi said:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Okay that is just the most batshit answer you could give. First as previously mentioned, not all women can take the pill for a wide range of reasons. Second, where the actual flying fuck is the respon

Back early in this thread Almagnus wanted us to take a test so he could adjust his responses. I am no fool. A person of conviction doesn't amend their opinions based on what others say. Its been more

pffft

Posted Images

So on further reflection, a large part of the issue between both sides right now is that there's a large chunk of ideologues that want to shame others into submission and believing as they do, rather than look at the evidence, think about the issue, and come to a rational conclusion.  Phrases like wholly unscientific "the science is settled" and name calling (which, admitted, was more done for a reaction to make a point with a particular user by surfacing suspected feelings and flipping them back onto them to prove a point - as infantile as that truly was).  Also, when there's data that challenges your viewpoint you need to stop, look at the data, assess it's credibility, and integrate it into your world-view.

The biggest issue that the Republicans have are the far-left ideologues as (from a Republican point of view) the Democratic party has become overran by them, and I suspect large swaths of Americans no longer see the Democratic party as a healthy, functional party.  This is why the #WalkAway movement started, as many Democrats have become disillusioned by the way the party conducts itself, especially with how the media seems to be in bed with the Democrat top brass as the media is helping to shape the 2020 primary, much the same way that it helped shaped the 2016 primary.  It's even more infuriating when the blue states do stuff like this for a primary ballot:

No photo description available.

And that's also how I was able to vote for Bernie in the primary as (at that point) there was no point in voting in the Republican primary as Trump had basically gotten the nomination as none of the other candidates had a shot at winning or were still in the race at that point in time.  And for those wondering, the Facebook quote that accompanied this post was 'Where's the option for "None of the above"?'

The other thing that is oh-so-frustrating for the Republicans is that the Democrats have been basically attempting a coup against Trump from the moment he was elected.  When there's stuff like the following video going on with the current Trump/Ukraine plot, it causes more Republicans to doubt that this is actually real, as if one Democrat is making stuff up, how much of the charges are actually legitimate?

What is making this all the more problematic is that almost every single news outlet has a very sharp bias to it, so the reader is left to do the footwork towards figuring out what is actually going on as the MSM isn't doing their job as journalists.  This is why I am so quick to label the MSM as a propaganda machine, rather than a journalistic entity, as the MSM doing their job improperly leaves a bunch of Americans that have neither the time (nor the drive) to figure this stuff out with a misleading impression of what's going on.

The other main issue I'm seeing is that with corruption.  IMO, there needs to be term limits on Congress, so that way they are less likely to be bought and paid for by the lobbyists as we should not be having career politicians from any party as being a career politician provides too much incentive for them to pervert the system for their own benefit, rather than serving a couple of terms, and moving on with their lives.  IMO, we need to outlaw all forms of lobbying, as the lobbyists (and from what I have seen in Colorado, the regulators for that matter) tend to pervert the laws to benefit the larger corporations at the expense of the small business.  For example, my sister has recently opened a bakery cafe, but it is complete suicide for her business (at this point) to offer full time employment because Obamacare would force her to provide health insurance to any full time employee despite her still trying to debug the bakery's operations and not having enough revenue (at this point) to allow her to finance that extra expense as she had to adapt the idea that launched to what works (and doesn't) with the local market and also balancing debt and what not against revenue.  That's not to say that all regulations are bad (as she is fully certified with the appropriate state health boards and what not), but there are enough regulations that deter competition as there beneficial ones that they all deserve full audit to weed out the garbage ones (for example, there are many EPA and OSHA regulations that involve stuff that has a lesser chance to occur than you being struck by lightning which only hamper small businesses).

Another really big issue that no one is talking about with gun violence is that the larger cause tends to be gang related, to the point that it's almost racist to assume that gun violence is caused by a bunch of white mass shooters when (going by the demographics) most of the gangs are minorities and the bigger issue is not having enough options that are more accessible for the younger generation to get out of that lifestyle.  Yes, there are a few that get out of it, but as many (or more) feel trapped to stay in it.  I suspect a large part of this is caused by outsourcing jobs, and also the labor issues caused by illegal immigration (which basically allows the illegals to be used as slaves)... and yet, no one is talking about these points and we have talk about increasing the entitlements.  Which leads into another related issue as the entitlements don't work when you have illegals that are able to take full advantage of the entitlements and they are not paying into the system.

To clarify a point from the above paragraph, I am all for legal immigration.  If someone wants to come here and go through the proper channels for a work visa, green card, or become a US citizen, by all means, we should let them as long as we are reasonably sure they will become a positive to our tax revenue stream.  I am also willing to grant them exceptions if they'd like to bring their parents and children as well, as the children will eventually start paying taxes as well.  So back to illegal immigrants, one of the main issues is that the US grants citizenship to any child born in the US.... which is what's causing the dreamer problem.  IMO, this should be changed to only automatically grant US citizenship to a child if at least one of the parents is a US citizen without affecting any of the current US citizens.  This would also cut down with the human trafficking which would in turn cut funding to the Mexican cartels, and likely help Mexico stabilize as part of the US/Mexico issues are the cartels and all the illicit stuff (and people) they bring from south of the border into the US.

Circling back to the entitlements, IMO if you are wholly reliant upon social security when you hit retirement, you did it wrong. I get why social security is there, but at the same time, it's basically one giant ponzi scheme as (IMO) my money for Social Security would be better leveraged by handing it over to my financial adviser and I should damn well have an option to pipe my money out of what I perceive to be a bad investment into a better one... but the reality is that my money is not tracked as such, and if enough Americans actually did that, the entire social security system would fail as it's insolvent because the Social Security Administration never properly managed the money to begin with.

Medical care is one I'm actually on the fence for, as I can definitely see the benefit of it, however, with the way the pharmaceutical and insurance industries operate as parasitical leeches upon the US medical system, those two industries need to be dealt with first otherwise we're basically channeling a ton of tax money straight into private corporations.... at the expense of the health of the US population.  Obamacare succeeding in exacerbating this issue because it mandated that everyone should buy health insurance as it's solution... which isn't really a solution because you add additional financial stress and push more families closer to the financial breaking point, hurt small businesses (especially in the food industry) which likely don't have the margins needed to afford healthcare so have to either cut hours or fire people to meet the government mandate, and create a situation where (in my case) it was more beneficial to not have insurance and take the fine than get health insurance because I only spent half as much as a policy that was only marginally cheaper per visit than walking into one of the smaller clinics for a checkup and paying for everything out of pocket.  Yeah, I would have been screwed if something catastrophic would have happened, but at the same time, everything I have seen with the impact on my health care because of Obamacare has only cemented in my mind that Obamacare needs to go, and we need to take this entire system back to the drawing board and come up with a solution that makes sense... instead of having a solution that makes insurance companies richer without really changing anything for the better.

In any case, that's a bit longer of a ramble of what I see some of the key issues are facing the country, and no, the environment isn't one of them.  It's fine as it, the current policies prevent the wanton destruction of nature (which is something that should stay in place), and there are far more pressing concerns that need to be dealt with.  IMO, going nuclear powered - especially if we could figure out how to process the waste from one reactor into fuel for another - would allow us to decommission the coal power plants which would halt the environmental impact caused by coal mining and coal burning.  The only environmental protection that needs to happen (if it hasn't already) is the protection of the old growth forests.  Most of the US states have already protected (and managed) the woodlands and terrain well enough that there's not much concern from it... but IMO that should really left to the states to manage as the ecological concerns of Colorado are going to be different enough from Florida or Maine that having national law doesn't make sense.  But, like I mentioned, the environment in the US is fine as is, and I don't see it as some national crisis that the doomsayers have said it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

The other thing that is oh-so-frustrating for the Republicans is that the Democrats have been basically attempting a coup against Trump from the moment he was elected.

This seems to be a frustration everywhere. How can a political party get anything done when the opposing side is always getting in the way? It shouldn't matter if they think it's a bad idea, they aren't the ones who are supposed to be in power. It should really be a case of letting Trump get on with his plans, stop trying to undermine him, and see what happens. If he really is as bad for the country as they believe, the voters will see that for themselves in their own lives and he'd be out on his ear the next elections. If anything, he would do the job for the Democrats, and yet the amount of propaganda coming out against him all the time is doing the opposite. People don't like being told what to do, and the Democrats don't seem to realise that.

14 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

But, like I mentioned, the environment in the US is fine as is, and I don't see it as some national crisis that the doomsayers have said it is.

It's definitely going to become a problem if it isn't already. It's the urban expansion and over-exploited water sources that are doing the most damage. Sure, the US contributes 14% of all CO2 emissions, despite being 4% of the world population, but that's less of an issue than things like the loss of old-growth forest (as you say), the decreasing biodiversity, the loss of nutrients in soil, the domination of monocultures, the threat of GMOs escaping, pesticide reliance and over-use, etc, which are all because of an ever-increasing population needing more efficient but less sustainable methods for living and farming to support them. That all needs to be looked at now to put in place buffers for the effects while a solution is developed, otherwise the US will be a pretty empty wasteland with massive megacities on the coasts a la Judge Dredd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim that the current administration can't get anything done because the opposing side is "getting in the way" is a bit ironic.  I mean, the Republicans have a substantial majority in the Senate. What is happening is the exact opposite--the House has passed several initiatives that Mitch McConnell has decided not to even call to vote.  If anyone is obstructing the actual job of Congress (i.e. passing laws), it's the Republican majority.  This isn't speculation, this isn't "propaganda", it's actual facts.

But to be honest, the whole lot of them need to go.  Time for a restart.  With absolutely zero lobbying.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

So on further reflection, a large part of the issue between both sides right now is that there's a large chunk of ideologues that want to shame others into submission and believing as they do, rather than look at the evidence, think about the issue, and come to a rational conclusion.  Phrases like wholly unscientific "the science is settled" and name calling (which, admitted, was more done for a reaction to make a point with a particular user by surfacing suspected feelings and flipping them back onto them to prove a point - as infantile as that truly was).  Also, when there's data that challenges your viewpoint you need to stop, look at the data, assess it's credibility, and integrate it into your world-view.

 

It's good to see you calmed down. Next time another makes a post expressing opinion of our Democracy's history, perhaps you won't go off the deep end. I think the only point made was to see how clear, the depth you were willing to go with it. Then upon reflection and admittance of it being infantile, you were able to come back here and post something of value.

 

Many of the points you made have merit, but they are the base problems not the extracurricular spawned insanity. There are too many self interest at play to sift through, to ever think anyone will ever get to the foundational problems. The moment corporations were given rights equal to citizens, every bridge to freedom has been slowly been washed away, in the flood of greed.

 

On environment, I have to disagree. It has never gotten better and won't. Ask this question. Of any place on the political spectrum, who are the guardians of our environment, forests, water?

 

My answer is, no one.

Farmers will cut it down forests for farmland. Industry will cut forest down for resource. Industry will clear it off for space to build more industry. Then once the land is considered useless, its abandoned and left to the tax payers to reclaim it.  Water sheds become a resource for production. Water sheds slowly disappear from industry and urbanization. Carbon emission continually increase. Natural Carbon reduction loses its effectiveness with each passing year. Nations will not compromise their security, production, and living standard.

I want to say it can be solved by doing one thing. Plant a tree. That no longer matters, as long as the world manufactures millions of cars and other modes of transportation using petroleum products.

It might make more sense to say, if you want to reclaim the earth, throw away the keys to your car.

 

All of this effect is rolling on the rails at breakneck speed and no one individual can make a difference. Not a republican, not a Democrat. They represent the system that is destroying our world. Not a chance in hell they will do anything of worth. United States is just one country. Good luck on getting the rest to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Human influence on the so called global warming is negligent .

Temperatures have risen and fallen through history of the planet so there is nothing new and drastic happening .

One volcano eruption releases more co2 than most industrialized countries combined,so even of we go into full de-industrialization it would change nothing .

This " muh save planet earth " is just another tool for control of masses,almost like a new religion together with all fanaticism that it brings .

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Papi said:

The claim that the current administration can't get anything done because the opposing side is "getting in the way" is a bit ironic.

I agree that there have been quite a few of the Republican swamp monsters that have been getting in the way.

1 hour ago, Papi said:

I mean, the Republicans have a substantial majority in the Senate.

While the Republicans had both the House and the Senate, you aren't going to do jack if one is going to veto the other, as that completely halts legislation from ever getting to the President to get signed into law.

1 hour ago, Papi said:

What is happening is the exact opposite--the House has passed several initiatives that Mitch McConnell has decided not to even call to vote.

Please link the exact legislation (and not "news") articles where this has happened.  While I'm suspecting it's stuff like the garbage fire Green New Deal, which if that's the case, McConnel did us all a favor by letting it die.  However, if you can find the actual legislation so we can read what was proposed and draw our own conclusions (rather than being told what to think), that would be an interesting find.

1 hour ago, Papi said:

If anyone is obstructing the actual job of Congress (i.e. passing laws), it's the Republican majority.  This isn't speculation, this isn't "propaganda", it's actual facts.

So the Democrats going "IMPEACH TRUMP!" every other breath is what then?

1 hour ago, Papi said:

But to be honest, the whole lot of them need to go.  Time for a restart.  With absolutely zero lobbying.

Agreed, we need to flush the toilet.

8 minutes ago, Splay said:

It's good to see you calmed down. Next time another makes a post expressing opinion of our Democracy's history, perhaps you won't go off the deep end. I think the only point made was to see how clear, the depth you were willing to go with it. Then upon reflection and admittance of it being infantile, you were able to come back here and post something of value.

Oh, this is rich.

I'm not the one that lost their shit over a quiz result - and a quiz I was asking others to take so I can better gauge those around me and modulate my approach so it's more productive.  I'm also not the one that claimed someone else had skewed their test results because that person didn't match up to whatever fiction is in your head.  I'm not the only one Doro was speaking to, and you know it.

8 minutes ago, Splay said:

Many of the points you made have merit, but they are the base problems not the extracurricular spawned insanity. There are too many self interest at play to sift through, to ever think anyone will ever get to the foundational problems. The moment corporations were given rights equal to citizens, every bridge to freedom has been slowly been washed away, in the flood of greed.

There have been a couple of Supreme Court decisions that have been facepalm bad, and this is pretty near the top of them.

8 minutes ago, Splay said:

On environment, I have to disagree. It has never gotten better and won't. Ask this question. Of any place on the political spectrum, who are the guardians of our environment, forests, water?

The US has created the park service, and the real key to keeping the forests alive is to make sure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest stay with us, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_old-growth_forests#United_States shows we've got a good start.  The biodiversity of these forests are a critical component to keeping the North American ecosystem alive and kicking.  Throw in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Park_Service and that's already a good start with the US.  The trick, now, is to do stuff like field trips with schools into the national forests and start building an appreciation for nature.  On a more spiritual side of things, I definitely feel far more connected to everything out in the woods than I do in the city, 

8 minutes ago, Splay said:

My answer is, no one.

Farmers will cut it down forests for farmland. Industry will cut forest down for resource. Industry will clear it off for space to build more industry. Then once the land is considered useless, its abandoned and left to the tax payers to reclaim it.  Water sheds become a resource for production. Water sheds slowly disappear from industry and urbanization. Carbon emission continually increase. Natural Carbon reduction loses its effectiveness with each passing year. Nations will not compromise their security, production, and living standard.

You need to take a look at how quickly the town next to Chernobyl has turned to wilderness - complete with five legged deer.

8 minutes ago, Splay said:

I want to say it can be solved by doing one thing. Plant a tree. That no longer matters, as long as the world manufactures millions of cars and other modes of transportation using petroleum products.

That's actually the best solution, as planting trees ended https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl , but they are also natural CO2 scrubbers - which is why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest is a problem (and why you shouldn't buy Brazilian beef, soy, or wood products).

8 minutes ago, Splay said:

It might make more sense to say, if you want to reclaim the earth, throw away the keys to your car.

Or we should innovate to adapt to the challenge...

23 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

Human influence on the so called global warming is negligent .

Temperatures have risen and fallen through history of the planet so there is nothing new and drastic happening .

That's also ignoring the possible solar impact on climate (solar energy output increases/decreases) - or what happens if we get hit by an asteroid.  Amusingly with the latter, if it's sufficiently big enough to form a second moon it's not going to matter much after the impact.

23 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

One volcano eruption releases more co2 than most industrialized countries combined,so even of we go into full de-industrialization it would change nothing .

You're forgetting the impact of China and India on the climate, and a certain threshold of climate reduction where all trying to drop that emission rate does is cripple your economy because the tech and processes involved are not economically viable when implemented across the economy.

23 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

This " muh save planet earth " is just another tool for control of masses,almost like a new religion together with all fanaticism that it brings .

It would be more correct to call it a cult (as cults do not necessarily need to be religious and religion is not inherently a cult)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doro said:

This seems to be a frustration everywhere. How can a political party get anything done when the opposing side is always getting in the way? It shouldn't matter if they think it's a bad idea, they aren't the ones who are supposed to be in power. It should really be a case of letting Trump get on with his plans, stop trying to undermine him, and see what happens. If he really is as bad for the country as they believe, the voters will see that for themselves in their own lives and he'd be out on his ear the next elections. If anything, he would do the job for the Democrats, and yet the amount of propaganda coming out against him all the time is doing the opposite.

It's just as wrong when the Democrats do it for the Republican presidents as when the Republicans did it for the Democratic presidents.  The big issue is that people want to play sports with politics, and that only helps the lobbyists....

3 hours ago, Doro said:

People don't like being told what to do, and the Democrats don't seem to realise that.

The more amusing thing with Americans is that we really like it when our underdogs win, and if the media is going to turn Trump into an underdog... well.... I think you see what's going on =P

3 hours ago, Doro said:

It's definitely going to become a problem if it isn't already. It's the urban expansion and over-exploited water sources that are doing the most damage.

The US is so vast that this is probably more of a European issue than an American one.  Water sources, on the other hand, tend to be more about how they're mismanaged than usage numbers.  And if all else fails, you can take a note from the space program and recycle sewage into drinking water, which helps with the water loss - but no one wants to do that for some strange reason....

3 hours ago, Doro said:

Sure, the US contributes 14% of all CO2 emissions, despite being 4% of the world population

Look at China and India's numbers, and you'll see it's probably far less.  US is probably because we like our cars more so than anything else.

3 hours ago, Doro said:

but that's less of an issue than things like the loss of old-growth forest (as you say)

A large part of this deals with how you generate timber for building materials (as the US uses a lot of wood products for construction), but there are some forests that have been protected, and should remain so.

3 hours ago, Doro said:

 the decreasing biodiversity

Which is a result of humans screwing with the ecosystems and transporting species from one area to another, and also removing predators from the equation because of shepherds and ranchers protecting their livestock.

3 hours ago, Doro said:

the loss of nutrients in soil

If farming is done correctly, this ins't a problem.  However....

3 hours ago, Doro said:

the domination of monocultures

If this is referring to what I think it does, multiculturism doesn't work as all that creates is enclaves in your own country, which causes problems down the road, especially when they start adding their own laws on top of the local and national ones.

3 hours ago, Doro said:

the threat of GMOs escaping

I'm not entirely convinced these things are as healthy as we think they are, which is another issue aside from the bullying against the family farmers coming form companies like Monsato.

3 hours ago, Doro said:

pesticide reliance and over-use

Which is why looking into organic foods is a good thing, as the way food production is done now isn't sustainable (and arguably not healthy for that matter).

3 hours ago, Doro said:

which are all because of an ever-increasing population needing more efficient but less sustainable methods for living and farming to support them.

... So what about hydroponics?  That lets you expand the growing area vertically if you use lighting on the lower levels, allowing for incredibly dense plant production.

3 hours ago, Doro said:

That all needs to be looked at now to put in place buffers for the effects while a solution is developed, otherwise the US will be a pretty empty wasteland with massive megacities on the coasts a la Judge Dredd.

rofl_example_image.png?1468040492

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Please link the exact legislation (and not "news") articles where this has happened.  While I'm suspecting it's stuff like the garbage fire Green New Deal, which if that's the case, McConnel did us all a favor by letting it die.  However, if you can find the actual legislation so we can read what was proposed and draw our own conclusions (rather than being told what to think), that would be an interesting find.

 

Here is one https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8

and another https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1112/text

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

Human influence on the so called global warming is negligent .

Temperatures have risen and fallen through history of the planet so there is nothing new and drastic happening .

One volcano eruption releases more co2 than most industrialized countries combined,so even of we go into full de-industrialization it would change nothing .

This " muh save planet earth " is just another tool for control of masses,almost like a new religion together with all fanaticism that it brings .

In the scheme of millions of year, I can fully agree. I don't recall any human living that long. Every species has an expected life span before they become extinct or evolved into something else. To say our impact since the early steps leading to the undustrial age and into today's world have not contributed, I'd have to disagree.

Today is October 1st a high of 91 degrees. Tomorrow expected 95 degrees. Leaves should be turning the expected colors of fall for the Eastern US. They are still green because there have only been a few nights of average temperatures. All else is 5 to 10 degrees higher. Good chance they will stay green until a frost than fall to the ground a day or so later. I don't see winters anymore with snowfall covering the grounds for 3 or more months during the winter. That is just a noticeable change in my life.

I agree there is a hysteria promotion over global change. Take notice to who promotes this hysteria and what they have to gain or lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The domination of monocultures.

In the context surrounding this in Doro's post, I'd say it refers to farmers planting only one crop covering large swaths of land. Whether it be corn or pine trees.

 

I've seen the Weyerhauser forests and nothing lives in them to even consider calling them diverse.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

The US is so vast that this is probably more of a European issue than an American one.  Water sources, on the other hand, tend to be more about how they're mismanaged than usage numbers.  And if all else fails, you can take a note from the space program and recycle sewage into drinking water, which helps with the water loss - but no one wants to do that for some strange reason....

It's the same for both continents. Urban land use (including airports and roads) is roughly equal between Europe and the US at around 5% depending on the sources definitions of "urban" or artificial land. However, for forests, Europe has a coverage of about 38%, while the US is 28% (though we have northern regions that boost that, and Canada is at about 44% themselves). These issues are happening across all developed and developing nations.

The UK effectively does drink recycled sewage water, too. It's still not helping to prevent water shortages and over-exploitation of aquifers (which is ironic considering our current issue with flooding).

10 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Look at China and India's numbers, and you'll see it's probably far less.  US is probably because we like our cars more so than anything else.

China and India combined make up 35% of the world population and produce 36% of CO2. Despite the sheer scale, their contribution is effectively the average. Even though CO2 isn't as big of an issue as has been made out in recent years, the US's contribution is indicative of an underlying issue with an unsustainable population.

10 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

A large part of this deals with how you generate timber for building materials (as the US uses a lot of wood products for construction), but there are some forests that have been protected, and should remain so.

Not only that, they also need to be encouraged. While populations continue to grow, it's not viable to simply maintain what's there. The US has an issue much like Brazil, in that new forest growth that's intentionally developed for lumber is regularly removed and re-grown, which is almost as bad as having artificial landscapes in terms of biodiversity and ecological niches.

10 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Which is a result of humans screwing with the ecosystems and transporting species from one area to another, and also removing predators from the equation because of shepherds and ranchers protecting their livestock.

Yep, the impact of destroying niches, interfering with established balanced ecosystems, over-management of woodland to keep it in stasis instead of natural development, etc.

10 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

If farming is done correctly, this ins't a problem.  However....

Yeah, there will always be people that try to take a shortcut. It's been a problem in multiple countries, often creating dust storms. North America had a massive issue with it back in the 20s or 30s with the Dust Bowl stuff, and topsoil depletion is still ongoing.

10 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

If this is referring to what I think it does, multiculturism doesn't work as all that creates is enclaves in your own country, which causes problems down the road, especially when they start adding their own laws on top of the local and national ones.

Ah no, sorry, I meant in terms of farming, where there's no longer a variety in crops or crop-rotation, it's just dominated by whatever species is the most efficient for human consumption regardless of the ecological outcome. Makes it a huge concern since those monocultures are susceptible to new diseases wiping out the entire lot due to a lack of genetic diversity.

10 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

I'm not entirely convinced these things are as healthy as we think they are, which is another issue aside from the bullying against the family farmers coming form companies like Monsato.

I'm still sceptical, too, but I know they're definitely not a good idea to have accidentally introduced into natural ecosystems. GMO often makes a species hardier than wild species and can outcompete them. Remove too many primary producers from a system, and the tiers above begin to struggle, if not collapse.

10 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Which is why looking into organic foods is a good thing, as the way food production is done now isn't sustainable (and arguably not healthy for that matter).

It's a good thing but it's also unsustainable itself when populations keep growing. You need more land to counter the lower yields, with more work to achieve the same results, making it more expensive, etc. Personally, I'd advocate personal home-growing as a partial buffer until a better solution is made available, but when it comes to urban populations that can be hard to achieve.

10 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

... So what about hydroponics?  That lets you expand the growing area vertically if you use lighting on the lower levels, allowing for incredibly dense plant production.

I've visited an example hydroponic farm here in the UK, and it's an interesting concept and definitely can provide greater yields for land-use but it's still not something that can cope with the sheer scale required. They had fish which provided the fertiliser, and even CO2 artificially added to the air (which it turns out a lot of contained farming does, go figure), and grew a range of products. However, my issue with it is how artificial it all is. It requires a lot of intensive work to maintain the system, it's expensive to run, it's not part of the ecosystem around it, diseases can spread more easily in contained systems (and their focus on more sterile conditions to avoid this could result in a sterile product that may provide more issues when consumed), water use is still a factor (though less so than farming in places where it's always hot and need constant irrigation to be viable), and currently the reliance on electricity is quite high on a larger scale or even with more "dense" foods like tomatoes or potatoes. It could work if certain current technological barriers are overcome, but until then it's mostly a gimmick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, cossieuk said:

IMO the Senate made the right call on both of those as they are completely counter to the US gun culture.  I mean, the point of the House and Senate having to both sign off on legislation, before it goes to be signed into law by the President, is to have one prevent the other from doing dumb stuff, and that dumb stuff becoming law.  That's why the President can veto legislation, and the veto can be overridden so a law can come into effect despite having a president that's being an idiot.

That said, I completely understand where someone would not be very happy with the Senate doing this, while I look at it as the system working as it should.

4 hours ago, Doro said:

It's the same for both continents. Urban land use (including airports and roads) is roughly equal between Europe and the US at around 5% depending on the sources definitions of "urban" or artificial land. However, for forests, Europe has a coverage of about 38%, while the US is 28% (though we have northern regions that boost that, and Canada is at about 44% themselves). These issues are happening across all developed and developing nations.

I think you need to take into consideration that much of the land west of the Mississippi River is either plains or deserts, so that's **A LOT** of terrain that a forest, quite frankly, won't grow in.  For example, I would consider states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, and about a third of Texas to be mostly plains, while the southwest is either outright desert, or high mountain desert (which would be part of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Texas, along with Arizona and New Mexico).  Most of the states east of the Mississippi River are pretty densely forested, and then there's the freak state of Alaska is as big as roughly half of the continental US (aka lower 48), and that's got a fair amount of Arctic tundra in it.

So looking at the raw forestry number does not take into consideration the terrain.  For that matter, the   In other words, the ecosystem diversity of the US is on a whole different level compared to Europe.

4 hours ago, Doro said:

The UK effectively does drink recycled sewage water, too. It's still not helping to prevent water shortages and over-exploitation of aquifers (which is ironic considering our current issue with flooding).

From what I know of the issue, part of it (especially with the Colorado River not getting to the Mexican coast) is due to too many population centers pulling from the Colorado 

That said, a lot of the water issues with California are more due to mismanagement of the system, rather than 

4 hours ago, Doro said:

China and India combined make up 35% of the world population and produce 36% of CO2. Despite the sheer scale, their contribution is effectively the average. Even though CO2 isn't as big of an issue as has been made out in recent years, the US's contribution is indicative of an underlying issue with an unsustainable population.

I don't think that's the correct conclusion, though.  Large swaths of China and India are basically third world countries, while the air quality in the cities are abysmal at best.  I suspect those stats are where an average is hiding the extremes on both ends.  That said, a large chunk of the US carbon emissions (likely the majority) are from cars on the road, which is related to the sheer size of the US (I mean, I just did about a ~700 mi/1.1k km trip one way to go visit my folks for a couple of weeks).  About the best solution I've seen yet is the CO2 scrubber that creates gas, as at least that helps make the gas powered cars more of a closed loop.  There's so much infrastructure issues in play especially since we're working with a country that's about as big as Europe with areas that vary greatly in population density as the total population of the US is about half.

4 hours ago, Doro said:

Not only that, they also need to be encouraged. While populations continue to grow, it's not viable to simply maintain what's there. The US has an issue much like Brazil, in that new forest growth that's intentionally developed for lumber is regularly removed and re-grown, which is almost as bad as having artificial landscapes in terms of biodiversity and ecological niches.

And yet, what are the alternatives?  Metal isn't widely used as that's actually difficult to work with, and not nearly as easy to recycle.  Stone is completely out of the question as that would create more ecological problems with the quarrying, then you have to transport it (sometimes several hundred miles) to the building site.  You've got the options to work with plastics, but that puts more reliance upon oil.

While it may be an issue (IMO I don't think it is), but what are the alternatives?

4 hours ago, Doro said:

Yep, the impact of destroying niches, interfering with established balanced ecosystems, over-management of woodland to keep it in stasis instead of natural development, etc.

So... what's the alternatives?  All the humans leave wilderness areas alone and let nature run it's course?

That said, we have learned **A LOT** from our mistakes, especially around Yellowstone.  Yellowstone taught us the importance of fire with forest management, and also what happens when you introduce a natural predator back into the mix by reintroducing wolf packs which dramatically improved biodiversity within the park.

A large part of this issue is that the English (with their asinine views towards the natives that they instilled into the early Americans) actually created most of these issues because we did not learn from the natives how to properly manage our forests.  We're starting to get it as time progressed, so I'm hopeful, rather than nihilistic, in this regard.

4 hours ago, Doro said:

Yeah, there will always be people that try to take a shortcut. It's been a problem in multiple countries, often creating dust storms. North America had a massive issue with it back in the 20s or 30s with the Dust Bowl stuff, and topsoil depletion is still ongoing.

Looking at Haiti, it's when you get populations that don't understand the science and do dumb stuff.  Haiti/Dominican Republic is a great case study in how one ecosystem can change so much depending on the government.  While there will always be those that refuse to learn (and thus, live in shitholes because of it), if you can explain it to the farmers in a way that makes sense, most of them are going to get it, and change accordingly.

4 hours ago, Doro said:

Ah no, sorry, I meant in terms of farming, where there's no longer a variety in crops or crop-rotation, it's just dominated by whatever species is the most efficient for human consumption regardless of the ecological outcome. Makes it a huge concern since those monocultures are susceptible to new diseases wiping out the entire lot due to a lack of genetic diversity.

And if they get wiped out, that's basically nature correcting for human stupidity.

If this is a place where reforming (or regulating) is necessary, then it should probably happen - but I highly doubt it until the lobbyists get thrown out of the US government.

4 hours ago, Doro said:

It's a good thing but it's also unsustainable itself when populations keep growing. You need more land to counter the lower yields, with more work to achieve the same results, making it more expensive, etc. Personally, I'd advocate personal home-growing as a partial buffer until a better solution is made available, but when it comes to urban populations that can be hard to achieve.

Oh, I'm just waiting for some pandemic to finally punch through our medicine and course correct for us, as the US is basically not going to see an invasion largely due to the Second Amendment and that normally not happening with much of the developed (and nuclear armed) part of the world.  That's also one of the more amusing things about nuclear proliferation... everyone gets nukes... then realizes that they really don't want them have them used against each other... and we figure out how to (more or less) peacefully coexist.

As far as ubran populations goes, that's where you turn the tops of buildings (and balconies for that matter) into growing areas.  Granted, you will need to fences in the top of the building and design it to work like that, but it's space that no one is really thinkign about.

4 hours ago, Doro said:

I've visited an example hydroponic farm here in the UK, and it's an interesting concept and definitely can provide greater yields for land-use but it's still not something that can cope with the sheer scale required. They had fish which provided the fertiliser, and even CO2 artificially added to the air (which it turns out a lot of contained farming does, go figure), and grew a range of products. However, my issue with it is how artificial it all is. It requires a lot of intensive work to maintain the system, it's expensive to run, it's not part of the ecosystem around it, diseases can spread more easily in contained systems (and their focus on more sterile conditions to avoid this could result in a sterile product that may provide more issues when consumed), water use is still a factor (though less so than farming in places where it's always hot and need constant irrigation to be viable), and currently the reliance on electricity is quite high on a larger scale or even with more "dense" foods like tomatoes or potatoes. It could work if certain current technological barriers are overcome, but until then it's mostly a gimmick.

If the crops generated are just as good as what's in the real world, I don't see the issue with it, and that's also part of why we should be looking into how to scale that up.

However, that ties into one of the issues we have with almost all of the current solutions to most of the ecological problems... use electricity...  which is why we should seriously start looking into nuclear power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

IMO the Senate made the right call on both of those as they are completely counter to the US gun culture

We live in a strange world where a bipartisan bill to introduce much needed, common sense gun reform is shelved because it "runs counter to US gun culture".  That's almost like saying, "yeah but the NRA won't like it too much, so..."

America has a fragile identity problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

I think you need to take into consideration that much of the land west of the Mississippi River is either plains or deserts, so that's **A LOT** of terrain that a forest, quite frankly, won't grow in.  For example, I would consider states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, and about a third of Texas to be mostly plains, while the southwest is either outright desert, or high mountain desert (which would be part of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Texas, along with Arizona and New Mexico).  Most of the states east of the Mississippi River are pretty densely forested, and then there's the freak state of Alaska is as big as roughly half of the continental US (aka lower 48), and that's got a fair amount of Arctic tundra in it.

So looking at the raw forestry number does not take into consideration the terrain.  For that matter, the   In other words, the ecosystem diversity of the US is on a whole different level compared to Europe.

Much of the plains states were once forested after this last ice age. American natives had a lot to do with those forests disappearing. It could be looked at this way. The deforestation of North America didn't begin with the introduction of Europeans. This was on ongoing process, though for varying reasons, all attributed to conscious choices by humans.

Its all been fairly well documented. It doesn't make sense to go with numbers and percents that are quite new for looking at an overall picture.

I'd much prefer to see a picture of Iowa covered in forest as opposed to Corn and Soybean.

 

On water: I think its time the Rio Grande is renamed to something more appropriate to its current existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Papi said:

We live in a strange world where a bipartisan bill to introduce much needed, common sense gun reform is shelved because it "runs counter to US gun culture".  That's almost like saying, "yeah but the NRA won't like it too much, so..."

America has a fragile identity problem.

If you actually look at the statistics... most of the gun violence is generally gang related, and almost always caused by handguns.  Then there's a really big part of the gun violence that's suicides.... which again is handguns.  Both statistics get lumped into the gun violence figure depending on how bad the source wants to make the problem appear.

How does creating gun reform for assault rifles affect this issue?

1 hour ago, Splay said:

Much of the plains states were once forested after this last ice age. American natives had a lot to do with those forests disappearing. It could be looked at this way. The deforestation of North America didn't begin with the introduction of Europeans. This was on ongoing process, though for varying reasons, all attributed to conscious choices by humans.

Can you prove it was not part of some naturally occurring process?

1 hour ago, Splay said:

I'd much prefer to see a picture of Iowa covered in forest as opposed to Corn and Soybean.

Do you have any idea what that would do to the world food supply?

1 hour ago, Splay said:

On water: I think its time the Rio Grande is renamed to something more appropriate to its current existence.

What, Rio de Inmigrante Ilegal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

And yet, what are the alternatives [for lumber]?

Mostly just the focus on also developing natural landscapes in addition to those used for lumber. Lumber growth isn't a huge issue, it's only a concern when it comes at either the cost of natural landscape, or preventing natural landscape from developing further. Both need to be achieved.

2 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

So... what's the alternatives [for natural forest]?  All the humans leave wilderness areas alone and let nature run it's course?

Pretty much, yeah. Correct what errors were made to begin with, and then let it work itself out. Most environments will naturally reach a climax community, but human interference to maintain specific ecologies midway through the succession often prevents that and creates unsustainable ecologies. There will, of course, be problems generated by human activity that will need to be accounted for during the management of the landscape, but our current approach of "everything must stay exactly how it is right now" isn't viable. Bound these zones of pure wilderness with more managed environments for human activity (hiking, hunting, etc), and you've got effectively protected ecological islands and buffer zones that promote biodiversity.

2 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

However, that ties into one of the issues we have with almost all of the current solutions to most of the ecological problems... use electricity...  which is why we should seriously start looking into nuclear power.

Ultimately, energy problems fall back on the constant increase in human populations, as with all issues that occur from a species evolved to live in small tribal groups. It's increasing faster than tech can reliably provide the needed solutions for, and at the rate it's going will likely be the reason global civilisation collapses in the future, before we reach the point of being able to colonise other planets. There's a suggestion that places like Africa were doomed the moment foreign forces provided them with sudden, "unearned" leaps in technology, as a society needs to develop equally alongside the technological progress that goes with it or can't cope. In a similar way, our planet's population is now outpacing the developments achieved, and won't last to see the advancements needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

IMO the Senate made the right call on both of those as they are completely counter to the US gun culture.  I mean, the point of the House and Senate having to both sign off on legislation, before it goes to be signed into law by the President, is to have one prevent the other from doing dumb stuff, and that dumb stuff becoming law.  That's why the President can veto legislation, and the veto can be overridden so a law can come into effect despite having a president that's being an idiot.

That said, I completely understand where someone would not be very happy with the Senate doing this, while I look at it as the system working as it should.

The Senate hasn't done anything, McConnell wont put the bills to the Senate to be voted on.  If the Senate did vote and voted them down, then fine you could say they did their job but to not even given then the chance is wrong.  No one person should have that level of power.

 

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

If you actually look at the statistics... most of the gun violence is generally gang related, and almost always caused by handguns.  Then there's a really big part of the gun violence that's suicides.... which again is handguns.  Both statistics get lumped into the gun violence figure depending on how bad the source wants to make the problem appear.

How does creating gun reform for assault rifles affect this issue?

So because you cant solve all of the issues you dont do any thing at all.  That is just a stupid idea.  Surly doing something to try and tackle the high levels of mass shootings is worthwhile.  No kid should every have to go to school and have a drill for what to do in the event of an active shooter.

If you want to drive a car you need to take lessons and pass a test.  Then you need to have insurance, and register the car with the government, but to have a gun you dont need to do any of that, you can go up to some guy in a pub and buy his and no one is ever informed that you now own a gun.  How is this acceptable.

As a Brit, I dont get the obsession with guns, it is not a way of life here.  I get that in the US it is different, but I have never heard a good argument for owning an assault rifle, that can be converted to fully automatic firing, and fitted with magazines holding up to 100 rounds.  Just who are you trying to protect yourself from.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

and no one is ever informed that you now own a gun.  How is this acceptable.

And why should someone be informed how i spend my money on things i want .

13 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

... Then you need to have insurance, and register the car with the government ...

Did real wonders in stopping truck attacks in Europe right ?

14 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Just who are you trying to protect yourself from.  

From government and people who are so convinced in their own moral high ground they would use force to make me live according to their ideas .

And don't make this sound as some unique USA thing,there are many people around the world that understand that gun rights = human rights .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Can you prove it was not part of some naturally occurring process?

Well, subjective to some philosophical differences, everything is part of the natural cycle. If you're asking if nature and the planets cycles, of weather and planetary position, in regards to our sun, with its varied effect, then yes. Yes its all relative and well established and documented. What is also well established and documented, is how the early American's native to the North American continent have had major impacts long before Europeans arrived. It is well known Native Americans burned grasslands and forests to promote new growth. New growth attracts herding herbivores. It was also a way to drive selected prey into a position to enable a kill. There are Ecologist who have taken many samples all over the globe to identify the past environs of nearly every place on the globe. In the samples are wood, pollen, and spores. All of which can be dated.

If you are asking for links, well... I leave that discovery up to those interested enough to want to know for themselves.

 

55 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Do you have any idea what that would do to the world food supply?

Yes I do. I have no qualms about the consequence.

I place more value on a Squirrel than a Cat. I place more value on a mountain stream than a bottle of water. I place more value on a tree than a house. I ultimately place far more value on a self sustaining human population than I do breeding billions of dumfounded dipshits, who walk about airing entitlement, arrogance, and total disregard for the very thing that brought them about in the first place. Plus I don't want to smell their garbage and shit.

 

11 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

there are many people around the world that understand that gun rights = human rights .

I must have missed the memo on this. My rights as a human are defined and upheld by me, not a gun.

I haven't owned a gun in over 30 years. I don't care about the issue on way or the other.  Last time someone pointed a loaded pistol at me was their last time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

I'm pretty sure that's what constitution and government do ... unless you live on some pacific island all alone :)

Your statement reads and unsure and inconclusive. Mine reads as an absolute.

Doesn't everyone live on their own island? :Y

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doro said:

Mostly just the focus on also developing natural landscapes in addition to those used for lumber. Lumber growth isn't a huge issue, it's only a concern when it comes at either the cost of natural landscape, or preventing natural landscape from developing further. Both need to be achieved.

There's entire mountains (that are generally away from most people) that get used to grow the massive pines and firs that become lumber.  IMO, you're basically saying "don't do this" as you're coming off being contradictory as you can't have both.

1 hour ago, Doro said:

Pretty much, yeah. Correct what errors were made to begin with, and then let it work itself out. Most environments will naturally reach a climax community, but human interference to maintain specific ecologies midway through the succession often prevents that and creates unsustainable ecologies. There will, of course, be problems generated by human activity that will need to be accounted for during the management of the landscape, but our current approach of "everything must stay exactly how it is right now" isn't viable. Bound these zones of pure wilderness with more managed environments for human activity (hiking, hunting, etc), and you've got effectively protected ecological islands and buffer zones that promote biodiversity.

We can't just kill off people, as that's kinda an immoral solution.

Rather, we need to figure out better and more efficient solutions for the needs of the growing population - even if that means having a mass migration to another planet (so we can screw that up too).

1 hour ago, Doro said:

Ultimately, energy problems fall back on the constant increase in human populations, as with all issues that occur from a species evolved to live in small tribal groups. It's increasing faster than tech can reliably provide the needed solutions for, and at the rate it's going will likely be the reason global civilisation collapses in the future, before we reach the point of being able to colonise other planets.

I think that point is closer than you think it is.

1 hour ago, Doro said:

There's a suggestion that places like Africa were doomed the moment foreign forces provided them with sudden, "unearned" leaps in technology, as a society needs to develop equally alongside the technological progress that goes with it or can't cope. In a similar way, our planet's population is now outpacing the developments achieved, and won't last to see the advancements needed.

Most of Africa's problems are because we keep flooding them with charity, which completely wrecks their economy so they are perpetually kept at a third world state.

I mean, if you keep supplying a village with fish, the fishermen aren't going to be able to make an income.

59 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

The Senate hasn't done anything, McConnell wont put the bills to the Senate to be voted on.  If the Senate did vote and voted them down, then fine you could say they did their job but to not even given then the chance is wrong.  No one person should have that level of power.

If (hypothetically speaking) there was a bill stating that anyone should be able to kill a white person (because that will help equal out their privilege) was passed by the House, then I would expect the Senate to not even give a bill the time of day because it's just mind numbingly stupid.

59 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

So because you cant solve all of the issues you dont do any thing at all.  That is just a stupid idea.  Surly doing something to try and tackle the high levels of mass shootings is worthwhile.  No kid should every have to go to school and have a drill for what to do in the event of an active shooter.

This is straight up misinformation.  The mass shootings make up, being generous, about 5% of the gun deaths in the US.  The overwhelming majority of those mass shootings occur in a gun free zone.

If you are saying the mass shootings are the problems, that is also an insanely racist position because you are ignoring the gang violence which primarily affects minorities.  The "mass shootings are the problem" stance is one that completely ignores the data.

59 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

If you want to drive a car you need to take lessons and pass a test.  Then you need to have insurance, and register the car with the government, but to have a gun you dont need to do any of that, you can go up to some guy in a pub and buy his and no one is ever informed that you now own a gun.  How is this acceptable.

You don't need a license to use a hammer, yet a hammer can be used to kill.  Nor do you need a license for a knife, and it too can be used to kill.  The problem here isn't the gun, it's the motives of the killer.

It's also ignoring that illicit gun sales don't use the system, so by harrassing legal gun owners, you do absolutely nothing about the people that are operating outside the law.

59 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

As a Brit, I dont get the obsession with guns, it is not a way of life here.  I get that in the US it is different, but I have never heard a good argument for owning an assault rifle, that can be converted to fully automatic firing, and fitted with magazines holding up to 100 rounds.  Just who are you trying to protect yourself from.  

You can convert almost any semi-auto gun (fires one round, and reloads after the shot) into a fully auto rifle.  However, if you are hunting something like an elk, moose, bear, or boar you damn well want a semi-auto because if you don't outright kill it on the first shot, the second shot is necessary or it's going to attack you and be very, very pissed off.  This is where a bolt action rifle can actually be more hazardous to the hunter, as a semi lets you keep firing until the target drops.

In those cases, most of the calibers used by assault rifles are actually insufficient, meaning that a hunting rifle is actually a far more lethal weapon because it fires a bigger bullet at similar (or higher) velocity.  Many come with scopes (as if you're hunting a bear, you want to be somewhere where it's hard for it to attack you).

And being a Brit, you know absolutely nothing about our gun culture, and how it was our armed citizens that kicked you out of our country... TWICE.  The other thing is that by having the populace well armed, it protects us from external invasions.  Also, look at the history of gun legislation, and you'll see a correlation between some of the darkest tragedies of the 20th century following the disarming of the general populace.

42 minutes ago, Splay said:

Plus I don't want to smell their garbage and shit.

Then don't live in a city in a blue state?

42 minutes ago, Splay said:

My rights as a human are defined and upheld by me, not a gun.

Which means that I can declare that you have no human rights, as I don't recognize your human rights.

Please explain how that is incorrect.

42 minutes ago, Splay said:

I don't care about the issue on way or the other.

... then why did you comment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...