/townhall/ - Townhall

1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>15279
I do have to ask:
> But the good news: we have a possible global Christian revival on our hands.
What makes this such good news to you?

And I don't mean to be contrarian and say this is a bad thing per se. But is there anything you are hopeful fo with Christianity in particular being on the rise?

It's admittedly a big theme in this administration's Easter message.

>>15282
I for one, am planning to get baptized in the coming weeks in a Presbyterian Church. I am one of the many turning to the faith. I have been dabbling in theology for a while now, and have even been imparting hermeneutics (the study of reading and interpreting scripture) and Church history in my congregation. Presbyterians in particular are among the more “intellectual” denominations.

Robert Sarah of Guinea is also a front-running pick

>>15279
We shall see if his efforts to support peacemaking across the world and end the rise in warfare will be picked up by others.

The odds are strong, I would say, especially since the modern view that nonviolence ethics are "controversial and political" is rightfully discarded by most Catholics and particularly those supportive of the late Pope's legacy.

I would say personally that nonviolence ethics is a direct and core part of the ministry of Jesus Christ in the first place. The atonement on the cross is an expression of compassionate reconciliation, which is exactly the same moral principle reflected by the "turn the other cheek" saying. Belief that every single human life matters and is sacred relates exactly to all the other sayings, particularly about refusing to hate one's neighbors.

The man will be missed.

I do not believe the Israeli government places great value on love and tolerance.

>>15263
It is a rather tight schedule if they try to do all development in-house.  Maybe the US or Israel will sell nukes to them.

>>15265
It's unfortunate that we live in such troubled times.

My dad works at China and he says three minutes.

>>15270
Your entire video presentation was one gigantic strawman and wildly biased. How do you expect one to respond to it? Try making a point yourself instead of relying on AI-generated sophists to speak for you.

What you say is mostly great in theory, but the US in a country with a revolving door government installed by a fickle electorate with the collective memory of a goldfish manipulated by an emotion based media divorced from reality. There is no time for a years-long grace period, or even a months-long grace period, since in the time it takes for the grace period to elapse, the policy will have been overturned. Ripping off the Band-aid is the only way to ensure the policy actually goes into effect.

And I for one think it's a very good long-term policy. I am unconcerned about short-term losses.

>>15271
> And I for one think it's a very good long-term policy. I am unconcerned about short-term losses.
Hey, if that means that Trump will take full ownership of the fall out and not blame Canada / Europe / Biden / Obama that would be reason-
He's already blaming everyone else for the fall out, is he?

>>15271
>>15271
>What you say is mostly great in theory, but the US in a country with a revolving door government installed by a fickle electorate with the collective memory of a goldfish manipulated by an emotion based media divorced from reality. There is no time for a years-long grace period, or even a months-long grace period, since in the time it takes for the grace period to elapse, the policy will have been overturned.

Yes, all of that is just more reasons why primarily or solely using tariffs is a stupid and unrealistic solution to reestablish American manufacturing at this point. Americans won't 'Buy American' if there isn't anything American to buy, they'll just get poorer and suffer more than they already are as they pay the tariffs as they wait for those factories to be built, and many might not make it that long considering just how many Americans are already barely making enough to have any savings and surviving paycheck to paycheck.

Also, your argument for doing this haphazardly and quicklu because our politicians may not be able to complete that grace period before leaving office completely ignores all the times policies that needed time to implement longer than elected term limits have been successfully implemented in the past. A well thought out policy is something that people would elect future politicians to continue.

>And I for one think it's a very good long-term policy. I am unconcerned about short-term losses.

But those losses won't be short-term. Tariffs this broad and sweeping have only been done twice in the US's past, once in 1828 and again in 1930. The Tariff of abomination in 1828 deeply hurt the south, dependent on importing goods and materials from the british, setting off a series of events that would contribute to tensions that would culminate into civil war with the election of Lincoln 30 years later. And of course, the Tariffs Hoover passed in 1930 and all the retaliatory Tariffs implemented by other countries helped turn an economics recession into global economic depression that set the stage for world war 2.

We're fucking cooked. There are ways of using tariffs effectively but this ain't it.

>>15262
The America that Gates wrote that letter to is different than the America that currently exists to a degree that's gigantic, though.

>>15264
GPUs and datacenters must be paid for, but software ends up being mercilessly shared for nothing.

>>15266
This is true. However, building physical infrastructure to store data and perform other functions has evolved significantly when one compares, say, the 2020s to the 1990s. The difficulty of copying and saving 1GB of information in 1995 versus 2025 reflects major changes in things such as microchip manufacturing.

>>15254
From Grok:
"""
The drones over New Jersey stirred up a lot of buzz late last year, especially in November and December 2024, when people started spotting them across the state and beyond. It was a big deal—thousands of sightings reported, some near sensitive spots like military bases, and folks were freaking out, speculating everything from government ops to foreign spies. Then, just as you noticed, it all seemed to quiet down.

Here’s what went down: On January 28, 2025, the White House, via Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, said the drones were mostly authorized by the FAA for "research and various other reasons," with a chunk being hobbyists jumping on the bandwagon. They framed it as no big threat—“not the enemy,” as Leavitt put it. This echoed what the Biden administration had hinted at earlier, suggesting many sightings were just planes or helicopters misidentified in the hype.

But that explanation didn’t sit right with everyone. Local leaders, like New Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer, called it vague and confusing—what research? Whose drones? The FAA had slapped flight restrictions over dozens of towns in December, which only fueled the mystery, and then let them lapse in January. Meanwhile, posts on X and some news outlets pointed out contradictions: the FAA had told Congress they didn’t know what was up, and military brass, like the Joint Chiefs, admitted they couldn’t pin down the operators or origins. So, the "it’s all fine" line felt like a dodge to some.

Why the sudden silence? Could be a few things. The official story might’ve calmed the public enough to move on, or maybe media attention just shifted—Trump’s inauguration and other headlines took over. On X, skeptics still call it a cover-up, suggesting the government’s hiding something bigger, like a tech test or a security lapse they don’t want to admit. Without hard proof, though, it’s all guesswork. The drones didn’t vanish; the chatter did.
"""

I worry it might be Chinese spies.  Or maybe extraterrestrial aliens!