Hurlshort

The immigration policies before 1965 restricting certain countries had more to do with racism than fearmongering. Although there is certainly a measure of fear in racism itself.

Yeah, I'm not defending extremism, I was just explaining how it happens.

New episode is up, lots of history in this one.

That's not quite how it works. If you have a family living and working in the US, in some of these examples for nearly a decade, and suddenly the father is deported back to some war torn country (which the US shares responsibility for it being war-torn to begin with.) That family may have just lost their breadwinner, the kids have lost their dad, their entire lives are flipped upside down. They probably aren't going to pack it up and go to a war-torn country, but you've now created a situation where those kids are incredibly vulnerable to extremist ideologies. The US is no longer the place they came for opportunity, it is the country that forced their father to leave and is filled with people who hate their way of life.

Because Islamic extremists are not a genuine threat to the US. It's not an enemy state trying to wage war on us. They attack civilian targets because they know they have no real chance of toppling our government. Instead they try to spread fear, which they hope will force the government to do stupid things, which will add to their power. It's an ideology, and the danger lies in the spreading of that ideology. Honestly the President seems to be playing right into their hands. Are internment camps next?

We were just incredibly racist back then. It got a bit better in 1965.

Jesus, this stuff is unconscionable. I'm usually pretty tepid on the President stuff, I mean these guys are usually trying to do the right thing even when I disagree with the method. But Trump seems to be going for a full on villain here. There were a lot of complaints about how Obama used Executive orders, but Trump seems to be doubling down on that practice.

It is tremendous fearmongering.

Well no, I don't think California seceding from the Union would go down all friendly. Well if that were the case, then water rights would be the least of California's worries, given the complete lack of a military.

Jesus. Land of the free?

Yes but: 1. The Colorado River runs through California. 2. South of the Tehachapi is a pretty small part of the state as a whole. Right now a bunch of states share water rights along the river. It is unlikely they would abandon that relationship for any reason. Unless you think California will suddenly become an enemy state or something.

I'm not really sure where that idea comes from either, we aren't shipping in water from other states. There are plenty of disputes about how we use the water we have, and how we manage droughts, but the majority of the state is self-sufficient. The biggest dispute would be the use of the Colorado River. Now Colorado could turn the spigot off, which would hurt SoCal, but then we go back to the fruits and veggies that the rest of the country loves so much. Cut off your nose to spite your face, I suppose.

You know, we haven't even covered the whole torture stuff that the President keeps talking about. Yikes.

I have never heard anybody in an actual position of influence in the state actually talk about seceding, so I don't think 'California' is quite as keen as you might think. The main people I hear talking about are jealous 'conservatives' from other states.

I'm pretty sure Google, Apple, all the movies studios, HP, Tesla, etc. are not owned by the US in any way. That would kind of violate the entire model of capitalism. And considering a lot of these tech companies make their stuff in China, an independent California would probably have no trouble negotiating trade deals. Plus the port of LA is the largest trade port in terms of dollars in the world. Basically it would be a major loss for the US, but it doesn't really matter because it isn't going to happen. Anyone who wants it is delusional and is too caught up in political rhetoric to recognize basic economics.

From my point of view, it's the source of all of US's political problems, or most of them anyway. It was fine when it was Republican, or even a swing state, but now it's an evil, lawless Democrat empire. Ah ok, that doesn't sound unreasonable at all.

It's just such a weird sentiment to WANT California to leave. I mean, as you type it on your computer, or maybe on your fancy smart phone. Or as you enjoy your fruits and vegetables. Or as you watch your entertainment. Sure, California is the source of all the US's problems. Right-o.

Yeah, they aren't going to get half a million people to sign on to putting that on the ballot in California.

Ah my bad!

Huh? This would make sense for the original PoE, but it is pretty clear what tue sequel will play like and they had more gameplay and graphics in the trailer than before. 3 years is also probably a realistic timeline. They might actually hit it. edit: Where did you get 2020? It says 2018.

Yeah. Meanwhile the much more interesting Apocalypse Now RPG KS is at just about 80k. Bah. I backed PoE, but found it so underwhelming that didn't finish it and never came back. Gonna pass on this one. Best of luck to Obs, ofc. Heretic!

The Mass Effect trailer makes me think the game will be a lot like the first 3, and I'm happy with that. I have no issues with space operas.

I think they've already hit the day 1 peak, it seems to be slowing quite a bit. I do think they will hit the goal easily within the first couple days, but I think it will slow and the last days pickup will only be a few hundred thousand. Of course, this is all speculation.

They are nearing $400k in the first day. I'd say they will get around $1.5 million.

It's not really a simple question. Is the economic benefit of these pipelines worth the potential environmental risk? We already have a ton of lines crisscrossing the nation, do we need more? Is oil even worth the investment at this point as the future of energy is concerned? It seems like everyone wants to turn this into a big political fight, when really it should be left up to the economists and environmentalists to decide whether the risk/reward is worth it.