Mr. Teto, as a physicist and mathematician, I can do both math and science. Many ‘progressives’ only read the popular press versions of science, and have no idea how it works. How is it ‘progressive’ to work for the Reverend Malthus’ call to limit the number of unnecessary peasant babies rather than seeking new frontiers for them to live in as Mr. Trump has done? (Think purchasing Greenland like we purchased Alaska, and establishing outposts off-planet instead of always looking inward). How is it progressive to fear change, e.g., climate change, when the earth’s climate has changed repeatedly over its existence? If the sea level rises and floods the current beachfront properties, I see that it could hurt the rich owners of those properties, but since it creates new beachfront properties, how does that hurt us? We have heard the argument that we need free abortions to keep down the peasant population that we must care for, but that still strikes us as selfish motivation. We understand that promoting homosexuality keeps down the peasant population, since sperm and egg still have to meet to make new babies, but again, why is that better than opening new frontiers? We understand that making both parents work just to survive keeps them from having so many babies and makes the kids be raised by government-supported daycares, where they are programmed to be politically correct, and not to think for themselves, but how does that give us a more rational electorate? In Africa, black people are still trying to kill off other tribes of black people, just as Europeans have done among themselves for so long. At least here, we try to restrain that apparently natural impulse. The media make money out of controversy and strife, and so add fuel to any fire they can find. How does that help the public? How is it free speech, if anyone who disagrees with ‘liberal’ dogma is subject to vilification and silencing? We still prefer Mr. Trump for his forward-looking efforts.
Mr. Teto, as a physicist and mathematician, I can do both math and science. Many ‘progressives’ only read the popular press versions of science, and have no idea how it works. How is it ‘progressive’ to work for the Reverend Malthus’ call to limit the number of unnecessary peasant babies rather than seeking new frontiers for them to live in as Mr. Trump has done? (Think purchasing Greenland like we purchased Alaska, and establishing outposts off-planet instead of always looking inward). How is it progressive to fear change, e.g., climate change, when the earth’s climate has changed repeatedly over its existence? If the sea level rises and floods the current beachfront properties, I see that it could hurt the rich owners of those properties, but since it creates new beachfront properties, how does that hurt us? We have heard the argument that we need free abortions to keep down the peasant population that we must care for, but that still strikes us as selfish motivation. We understand that promoting homosexuality keeps down the peasant population, since sperm and egg still have to meet to make new babies, but again, why is that better than opening new frontiers? We understand that making both parents work just to survive keeps them from having so many babies and makes the kids be raised by government-supported daycares, where they are programmed to be politically correct, and not to think for themselves, but how does that give us a more rational electorate? In Africa, black people are still trying to kill off other tribes of black people, just as Europeans have done among themselves for so long. At least here, we try to restrain that apparently natural impulse. The media make money out of controversy and strife, and so add fuel to any fire they can find. How does that help the public? How is it free speech, if anyone who disagrees with ‘liberal’ dogma is subject to vilification and silencing? We still prefer Mr. Trump for his forward-looking efforts.