Trump should just admit he didn't win the popular vote. He won over all but he shouldn't give a shit. My attitude would be 'who gives a fuck'. Of course he wasn't going to win the popular vote. Once he blanket stated Mexicans, he lost Calfornia immediately and we are the most populated state. He should let that go and focus on the big picture of the vote that counts. The electoral college vote. It's one of the best facets that makes us a constitutional republic and is vitally important as a check and balance that all states regardless of population get a equal representation.
I couldn't believe the sour bullshit from some democrats over the idea that it's time to remove the electoral college. Unreal that nonsense. You know who handled this stuff well? Obama. He was PURE class over everything when his side lost. The transfer of power as one example. Obama doesn't align with me politically, but he's a class act when it comes to integrity. Trump should respect his council when possible.
That stuff with Trump isn't conspiracy, its just denial, he's a machismo person and doesn't know when to be humble. Get over it. I was laughing with then David Muir interview, because he just can't let it go. His idea of how this would work is a legitimate impossibility. Van Jones did a excellent video on CNN on analyzing Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/polit...th-trump-presidency-week-one-cnntv/index.html
I bet you were sharing endless Obama memes on Facebook prior to the election, and hitting the like button on your own posts.
Now that hyper is MIA, it's been fun watching you slowly walk back your Trump vote like someone who walks in on a crime scene, and thinks walking backwards out of the room slowly will undo what they saw/did.
You know who handled this stuff well? Obama. He was PURE class over everything when his side lost. The transfer of power as one example. Obama doesn't align with me politically, but he's a class act when it comes to integrity. Trump should respect his council when possible.
Van Jones did a excellent video on CNN on analyzing Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politi...ntv/index.html
LWKKK can't help himself.
He don't like libruls cuz they think they're so ooo smart!!! YOU'RE NOT FUCKIN SMARTER THAN ME LIBTARD!!!
He's so insecure that Donald's lack of vocabulary was very endearing to him. His vagueness and nonsense logic were like a warm baby's blanket for LWKKK
I'd argue that the media division machine is the ONLY thing that LWKKK understands about the current paradigm.
This is the guy who voted for Bernie in the primaries "because he cared the most about native americans", then became a full blown trumpfaggot after hillary won.
Chew on that.
LWKKK is the guy who placed a shitty bet on trump not making good on his campaign promises. He'll never build the wall. He'll never render tens of millions without healthcare. He'll never really deport hundreds of thousands of Mexicans.
Now he has the nerve to come back to the war room and talk his nebulous rambling vagaries again. Fucking idiot. It makes me lol because he proves himself right. I do think I'm more intelligent, more lucid, more able to see the political dialectic than a fucking softhead ed trumpfaggot. I'm arrogant about it and I have every reason to be.
This is the guy who voted for Bernie in the primaries "because he cared the most about native americans", then became a full blown trumpfaggot after hillary won.
Chew on that. .
Dakota Access Pipeline back on.
Problem with the right-wingers at large is that while they are certainly correct about media bias being a real thing, they are too stupid to figure out their supposed alternative news sources like Fox News, Breitbart, Alex Jones, Tomi Lahren, are even more biased than those LIBRUL outlets like the New York Times. Fucking hell, 20 years ago Pat Buchanan was on the far right. I never thought we'd reach a fucking time when by the current standards, Pat Buchanan would appear to be goddamn middle of the road in relation to the idiot Teabaggers.
I really can't fathom how you go from voting for Bernie in the primaries, to voting for Trump in the general election. What kind of fucking astounding logic do you have to deploy to determine that, since your supposed preferred candidate didn't get the nomination, the next best choice was a guy who thinks Twitter is a good way to convey thoughts on, oh I don't know, the most difficult fucking job on the planet? I don't believe he voted for Bernie as any legit Bernie supporter wouldn't have voted for Trump period. Maybe he can explain that to his Mexican friends he has so many of...oh wait, he won't have any friends left after Trump deports them all.
Bro yiu were gone for most of the time that I was goading LWKKK into a meltdown.
His logic is utterly inane to the point where he was posting project Veritas videos and talking about Alex Jones.
He's just a softhead that has a really hard time expressing himself well, hence the rambling walls of text full of poorly described thoughts and feels with fuck all for facts.
I love environmentalism, but there is a lot of danger associated with allowing science and politics to blend to that level and until some fair discussion without constant fear mongering or other stuff arises, I'm gladly avoiding it.
You don't like my views on climate change, it's fine.
Can you explain some of this danger? I see lots of pushback against subsidizing renewable energy sources, for example, but no examples of material downside. Let's say the climate is perfectly resilient and immutable - even then, what's the harm in funding development of new energy?
If you have to subsidize something to begin with it means that nobody acting in the free market saw it as a worthwhile investment -- ie, the material benefit doesn't outweigh the costs. You're essentially redirecting resources at gunpoint from a more productive
If you have to subsidize something to begin with it means that nobody acting in the free market saw it as a worthwhile investment -- ie, the material benefit doesn't outweigh the costs. You're essentially redirecting resources at gunpoint from a more productive use towards a less productive one. You're increasing the cost of energy for everyone else in society, and destroying future goods/services/employment that would have been stimulated by the extra money people would have had if the market wasn't tampered with.
(note: I am not a climate change denier nor an alarmist; just talking about economic consequences)
I understand the general consequences of pushing against market forces. I don't agree that, in this case, it's a significant concern. The energy market is already wildly distorted by national and international politics. If we're going to tolerate OPEC running a shameless international cartel, is it inappropriate to push back with our own national programs? I don't see a way for energy - petrochemical or otherwise - to ever be a straightforward market-driven system.
I love environmentalism, but there is a lot of danger associated with allowing science and politics to blend to that level and until some fair discussion without constant fear mongering or other stuff arises, I'm gladly avoiding it.
(note: I am not a climate change denier nor an alarmist; just talking about economic consequences)
There was fair discussion, it took place in the 1980s. Nothing happened. There was scientific discussion in the 1990s. Nothing happened. In the 2000s scientific consensus grew. Guess what, nothing happened. Now scientists are screaming about it and you say it's gone too far because someone taxed your plastic bags by 3 cents or some shit.
You say you are gladly avoiding the whole subject until some catastrophic level disaster unfolds in front of your eyes, at which point any action would no doubt be too late, then admit you're not a climate scientist so don't know what you're talking about.
Is it possible for you to step back for a moment and think about how fucking dumb that is.
I think some things trump (no pun intended) economic concerns.