420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich

penis pump

Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Trump's Budget Proposal by Wesley Granddock - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:09:09 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389407 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1489759749105.jpg -(146574B / 143.14KB, 913x629) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 146574
So Trump's budget is come out. Pretty standard Republican budget of cut everything that helps poor/working poor, pump the military etc.

It doesn't got after Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security which is usually part of their play. Trump did promise to keep these intact during his campaign.

Most likely this thing is DOA even with a Republican Congress because too many of the people hurt will be poor, rural whites (aka Trump voters). It also just offsets spending not really cuts the overall budget.

Biggest cuts is EPA (-31%), State Department (-29%) Department of Labor and the Department of Agriculture (-21% each).

Defense gets a +10% ($53 billion) and homeland security gets $2.8 billion.

Full list here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-budget-proposal.html
>>
David Derringfure - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:18:30 EST ID:xwNrC1vl No.389408 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389407
>resulting in a 1.2 percent cut in discretionary spending over all
really shrinking the government there, republican party...
>>
Jarvis Simmlefield - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:17:02 EST ID:kMHRWa3R No.389442 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489785422236.jpg -(2037819B / 1.94MB, 2048x1536) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Bush Junior 2.0

Huh, would you look at that. Quite the change from business as usual, eh?

>Biggest cuts is EPA (-31%)

Nice. Fuck nature.
>>
Lillian Pimmlestot - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:24:48 EST ID:8Jh2i/ky No.389443 Ignore Report Quick Reply
American right wingers have to be the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet.
>>
Hannah Sumblebury - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:06:09 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.389445 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389442
Fighting climate change is considered a waste of money but the budget sec.

Pruitt, with a Political Science degree, replaced someone with a degree in environmental science. It's impossible to reach Climate deniers with this, since they already deny the science.

But perhaps knowing our Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis, considers climate change a matter of national security may make them think:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mattis-climate-change-is-a-national-security-threat/article/2617369
>>
Emma Happerman - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:10:20 EST ID:d4oYvx90 No.389446 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389445

We're gonna fight climate change with the military. Preemptive strike.
>>
Hannah Sumblebury - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:18:07 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.389447 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389446
Don't joke. That might actually happen, lol...

"Those C02 things are some, very bad, bad dudes".
>>
Reuben Mapperhall - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 01:25:01 EST ID:Nla6yjir No.389472 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389442
Nature's gonna get along just fine. Overall I'm happy with this proposal. Really trims the fat.
>>
Clara Blazzlestone - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 01:37:16 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.389473 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389472
What are you happy about with the proposal? Do you not accept the science of climate change? Do you have issues with Meals on Wheels?

Give us your take on it.
>>
Nigel Dazzleham - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 02:44:01 EST ID:b2+Yo/sQ No.389474 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389473
I agree. I keep hearing people say it trims the fat, but I want to know why you think that.

It appears that there is no fat being trimmed and that the money is being reallocated into tax breaks for the rich, for companies, and towards oil.
The money that would have been going towards meels on wheels, education, grants, small businesses, and any programs for the poor instead given back to companies and the ultra wealthy 1 percent in the form of tax breaks. It's trickle down economics.
>>
Reuben Debberstock - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 04:32:42 EST ID:QK8mfsjv No.389475 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>fat being trimmed
>gutting protection of the water that you drink, the air you breathe, and the world you need to live in as a biological creature, not to mention the other species that are going extinct at a nightmarish rate
>54 billons dollars dumped into the absurdly bloated American Death Machine

The things that are so horrific and incomprehensibly contrary to good sense and life that they almost become comical
>>
Reuben Mapperhall - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:17:00 EST ID:Nla6yjir No.389486 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389475
It's not being gutted, it's being returned to a sensible level. The water will be fine. The planet will be fine. Climatic cycles are a natural occurrence. Extinction is a natural occurrence. How many species went extinct in the last ice age? We're powerless to stop the climate from changing, and any attempt will be a colossal waste of money. You need to stop letting these fear mongering politicians and their partners in the mainstream media get to you about that stuff. Defense of our nation is priority number one. Strengthening the economy with business-friendly policy is a close second.

Anyway, most of the things that got cut were frivolous and unnecessary.
>>
William Boddleway - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:37:00 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.389487 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389486
How does Trump's ass taste now that you have your tongue up it?
>>
Cedric Pittridge - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:05:28 EST ID:sUBj56yv No.389489 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389486
Its hilarious that some Americans still think the Military budget has anything to do with defense in the least.
>>
Clara Blazzlestone - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:45:15 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.389490 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389486
I don't mean this as an attack on you but you have an extremely pessimistic and delusional views of the current situation with climate. Money definitely could be used to support that damage that will be done. Your defeatist attitude is dangerous for the survival of our people. We will survive just fine here in the first world. The poor amongst the worlds inhabitants will suffer the most.

Please explain how subsidies to support those in poverty and the weaker of us frivolous. You are quickly losing all credibility. It's hard to take what you say seriously.
>>
Wesley Fivingham - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 14:44:28 EST ID:U6t110Pi No.389493 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489862668789.jpg -(19435B / 18.98KB, 387x309) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389486
>How many species went extinct in the last ice age?
Not very many. Cooling and warming cycles are common in Earth's history and the last period of glaciation was only 11,000 years ago. Today extinction rates are the highest they've been in 65 million years though, as human induced climate change and habitat fragmentation have brought on the sixth mass extinction in life's history.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150623-sixth-extinction-kolbert-animals-conservation-science-world/

>We're powerless to stop the climate from changing, and any attempt will be a colossal waste of money.
Tons of evidence against this. Why do you believe this? Fighting climate change would save us from billions of dollars of inevitable damage down the road even if we can't completely halt it. Rising sea levels are going to create a migrant crisis far larger than Syria.

>Defense of our nation is priority number one
pic related
>>
Simon Clayfuck - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 14:45:26 EST ID:Ur5nLQGI No.389494 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389486
>The water will be fine
For a lot of people, it's not fine now. Deregulating the EPA only helps the rich make even more money, while hurting everyone else.
>>
Archie Nisslewill - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 17:01:38 EST ID:3RUZOfcK No.389503 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389493

>pic related

When most of the US becomes prime waterfront property due to global warming, you'll be sorry you didn't invest more in defense.

We spend 10 billion a year on clean energy initiatives. We're slated to spend 650+ billion per year on defense. Clearly, we could defend ourselves far better if we just defended all clean energy and put it towards guns.
>>
Archie Nisslewill - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 17:02:16 EST ID:3RUZOfcK No.389504 Ignore Report Quick Reply
*defunded
>>
Shitting Shakelock - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 01:11:16 EST ID:Nla6yjir No.389521 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389490
Au contraire, I'm extremely optimistic about the progress this nation will experience under the new energy economy over the next 8 years. This 'human-caused' climate change crap is for the birds. According to sensationalist hollywood media, oceans were supposed to completely submerge Florida by now. No such thing has happened. Yes global temps will continue to rise as the polar ice melts and releases more CO2 (greenhouse gas) and the additional CO2 causes higher temps, causing more polar ice to melt, etc, etc, etc, etc, you get the picture? The cycle will continue unabated, because human activity is a drop in the bucket when it comes to this global engine of nature. At some point a reversal will occur, and we'll be saaaaailing on down into the next ice age. Maybe poor Florida will survive up to that point, maybe it won't. But there ain't shit we can do about it, and that's a bonafide FACT.
>>
Edward Crecklehood - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 04:33:56 EST ID:8Jh2i/ky No.389525 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389503
I swear there are people out there who think nuking a hurricane might help.
>>
Charles Chonnershaw - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 07:47:03 EST ID:b2+Yo/sQ No.389529 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389521
Au contraire, I'm extremely pessimistic about the progress this nation will experience under the new energy economy over the next 8 years. This 'nature-caused' climate change crap is for the birds. According to sensationalist republican climate change deniers, oceans haven't submerged anything. Yes global temps will continue to rise as the polar ice melts and releases more CO2 (greenhouse gas) and the addition CO2 causes higher temps, causing more polar ice to melt, etc, etc, etc, etc, you get the picture? The cycle will continue unabated if nothing is changed, because human activity still fuels this global engine of nature. At some point a reversal will occur if we chose to do something about it and we will be saaaaaaaailing on down into stabilizing the climate. Maybe poor Florida will survive before it is completely submerged, maybe it won't. But there is so much we can do about it, and that's a bonafide FACT.
>>
Thomas Blackstock - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 10:34:28 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.389535 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389521
Next time bring a snowball from outside to prove your statements instead of showing the over 100 climate science organizations that support man-made climate change. Less Hollywood, more science.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

Let's say nothing can be done about it and that it's a Hollywood scam that somehow infested itself into international levels amongst people with science degrees. At the end of the day, things will get bad. That means billions if not trillions in damages. Money that we need either way you slice it. So we either prepare and make the costs of the damage less or pay more for more damage.

This also says nothing about pollution. Either way, clean water and air are good investments, or would you rather all Americans wear masks in order to go outside like those in China.

You are wrong scientifically, ethically, and environmentally.
>>
David Devingston - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 10:40:21 EST ID:QK8mfsjv No.389536 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389535

>Let's say nothing can be done about it and that it's a Hollywood scam that somehow infested itself into international levels amongst people with science degrees.

Made me laugh. It really is fucking absurd. Even funnier when they claim it's a big money making scheme even though the people who really have money at stake are the people who create all the propaganda claiming it's a hoax.
>>
Fanny Dromblenut - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 13:20:54 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.389546 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389536
Unless they actually have a personal oil fortune they're lying in order to protect, climate change deniers are just flat out dumb, there's really nothing more to say.
>>
Shitting Shakelock - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 14:24:18 EST ID:Nla6yjir No.389550 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389546
All of us have a personal stake in the extraction and usage of oil. We all benefit from it, and we all should be concerned about letting it just sit there in the ground and go to waste.
>>
Fanny Dromblenut - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 15:35:58 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.389553 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389550
We should also be concerned about the consequences of using it. We all have a personal stake in the continued existence of life as we know it on this planet, too.
>>
Edward Crecklehood - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:31:12 EST ID:8Jh2i/ky No.389561 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389550
>All of us have a personal stake in the extraction and usage of oil. We all benefit from it, and we all should be concerned about letting it just sit there in the ground and go to waste
Fuck poe's law, No you can't be that stupid.

You know what, we can't do burning this priceless stuff that is basically the most important raw resource for modern *everything*.
Even if future generations won't condemn us for making the climate inhospitable they certainly will for using up the most important raw material known to chemists.
>>
George Lightstock - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:58:52 EST ID:Nla6yjir No.389565 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389561
Peak oil is a scam. There'll be enough to help us survive the next ice age.
>>
William Cacklesen - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:09:57 EST ID:h19uLDR2 No.389566 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389565

>peak oil is a scam

You're right, we'll continue to discover new oil reservoirs forever, because oil is an infinite resource.
Are you daft?
>>
Augustus Hammlechug - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:17:43 EST ID:N7VKcDhz No.389567 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389566
Nla6yjir is a troll and says ridiculous shit on purpose. search his code. i had to have it pointed out to me as well in the gerrymandering thread.
>>
Martha Babbleridge - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 04:30:27 EST ID:cBPyNYtq No.389574 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389566
it's not as if the process of making oil can't be replicated artificially.
Diamonds are pretty similar. Carbon, pressure, heat.
Oil. dead fucking animals, pressure, heat.

It would be pretty fucking metal if our dead were used to fuel our fiery engines of death. Soilent 1 motor oil.
>>
Sophie Turveyhall - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 07:23:56 EST ID:sUBj56yv No.389577 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389574
That'd be a MASSIVELY energy negative thing to do.
>>
Nicholas Wicklebere - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 07:47:03 EST ID:0B9qh6RW No.389578 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490010423192.png -(56794B / 55.46KB, 1080x675) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389574
>Oil. dead fucking animals, pressure, heat.
Oil gets its energy from all that heat and pressure.
Burning a dead body produces as much energy as converting it to oil and then burning it would, assuming literally everything is at 100% efficiency.

If we are only going to be getting the energy you've put into synthesizing the fuel back, we'll probably use hydrogen, a simple hydrocarbon, ethanol, or a battery.
>>
Polly Honeywater - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:32:08 EST ID:N+M5jlMw No.389742 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I wouldnt be very bothered beside the casual "proletariat justice" if the whole proposal didn't have a loophole for the House and Senate republicans that says "OK, but dont support the US as long as you are for the poor"
>>
Doris Grimwater - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:32:13 EST ID:ZL/M6cbo No.389756 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389577
it totally is but now you have a far more concentrated fuel source which is totally worth it supposing youre not able to just pull the shit out of the ground
>>
Eliza Drullyfoot - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:55:38 EST ID:0B9qh6RW No.389758 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389756
There are more energy dense, cleaner fuels that are easier to synthesize.
>>
Doris Grimwater - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:12:16 EST ID:ZL/M6cbo No.389762 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389758
thats the same argument thats used against solar bro
>>
Archie Sockleberk - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:41:25 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389766 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389762
Well it's a bad argument then because nothing is cleaner than sunlight and we don't have to synthesize it, only gather it.
>>
Doris Grimwater - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:25:34 EST ID:ZL/M6cbo No.389772 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389766
no its not
nothing is cleaner than sunlight? maybe
but what about the production of the solar cells?
look at the cost involved for the amount of energy generated
look how many cheaper alternatives there are! clean or otherwise!

(yeah its a dumb argument but its a dumb argument because technology takes time to progress and without funding it never will.....see where im going with this?
not that i think synthesizing oil is a good idea just that your argument is fucking dumb and thats the kind of bullshit that gets good ideas shot down before they even have a chance)
>>
Archie Sockleberk - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:45:04 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389773 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490334304949.png -(714919B / 698.16KB, 1280x845) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389772
>>look at the cost involved for the amount of energy generated
You're just reiterating the same arguments people have been for decades. You're like someone in 1992 complaining that the internet will take off because only thousands of people use. The power-conversion efficiency of photovoltaics has exploded in recent years, as the costs and carbon footprint of production has plummeted, and that's just using the traditional methods. There are all kinds of innovative solar technologies that don't even require fossil fuels, and some which recapture them from the atmosphere while making power at the same time!

So solar is clearly better, it's not a dumb argument, it doesn't need any more time to progress, it's its own industry that could actually probably thrive on it's own if government didn't keep propping up the fossil fuel energy and let market forces take their course. It mainly needs people to stop stonewalling for no good reason, because once we make the investment to switch and get off of non-renewables for good, we won't ever need to look back (and that's what they're afraid of and invest millions in getting you to argue against for them.)
>>
Archie Sockleberk - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:47:10 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389774 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389773
*complaining that the internet will not take off. Kinda changes my point. nb
>>
Eliza Drullyfoot - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:01:54 EST ID:0B9qh6RW No.389785 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490346114866.png -(25623B / 25.02KB, 1261x1170) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389762
Well yes, that's why we don't use sunlight as fuel.
You don't see anyone suggesting we fuel our cars by sticking solar panels all over them with no batteries or other method of power storage, do you?
Even if we get the energy to synthesize the fuel from solar, we still need a means of power storage, whether it's combustion of fuel, fuel cell, or battery storage.

>>389766
>nothing is cleaner than sunlight
We still have to mine the materials to make the solar panels, and at any scale, create the concrete and expend the land for solar power.
Every study I've seen that uses real numbers to project watt/hour generated in 20 years, hydro, nuclear, and wind all come out ahead.
Solar's capacity factor is just really low.

>it's its own industry that could actually probably thrive on it's own if government didn't keep propping up the fossil fuel energy
Per watt/hour, solar gets more government funding than any other source by a long shot.
If market forces were left alone, solar would not exist, it still doesn't compete without significant government subsidies.
>>
Fuck Commersteg - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:39:05 EST ID:sUBj56yv No.389786 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389785
>create the concrete and expend the land for solar power.

Isn't that offset with solar roof programs in the sea of Suburbia?
>>
Betsy Lightshit - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:48:07 EST ID:Sdpn5pvY No.389800 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490370487021.gif -(761692B / 743.84KB, 245x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389785
Solar is good for when you can't have the others. Take a desert for instance, like AZ. Not much water, a little wind in the North, yes we have that nuke station by Palo Verde. But holy shit, do we get the sun. It would be a boon to the southwest because there is less and less hydro to be done.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:04:45 EST ID:x8x4wfOW No.389803 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389800
Arizona should be converted into one giant hydro farm
>>
Jack Hickledale - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:19:17 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.389810 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389800
And yet AZ has passed laws designed to cripple the solar industry....
>>
Doris Grimwater - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:34:59 EST ID:ZL/M6cbo No.389832 Ignore Report Quick Reply
alright cool so weve gotten to the part of the discussion where everyone begins to realize different technologies have their own merits and you use the right tool for the job
yes a hammer is useful tool... but you dont use a hammer to mow your lawn and you dont use a lawnmower to drive nails

solar isnt a blanket solution same with nuclear, hydro, geothermal, hydrogen, etc, etc ,etc
>>
Oliver Worthingforth - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:20:40 EST ID:Ta8rvEqQ No.389838 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389810
you can thank the ancient right wing retirees who move there en masse and vote on every little thing when the young and middle aged barely vote at all.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.