mustardoverlordif you think we're gonna end up in a true (non-cold) war with russia over assad in 2016, after about 70 years of various antagonistic actions towards pro-russian regimes in the middle east, I don't know what to tell you
i'd be a lot more worried with hillary killing a lot of innocent syrian civilians, or assad's removal leading to a power vacuum that isis wins, if anything
I don't know what kind of war would be entailed, all i know is that the united states marine corps general says that to enforce it it would mean going to war with syria and russia.
[quote=mustardoverlord]if you think we're gonna end up in a true (non-cold) war with russia over assad in 2016, after about 70 years of various antagonistic actions towards pro-russian regimes in the middle east, I don't know what to tell you
i'd be a lot more worried with hillary killing a lot of innocent syrian civilians, or assad's removal leading to a power vacuum that isis wins, if anything[/quote]
I don't know what kind of war would be entailed, all i know is that the united states marine corps general says that to enforce it it would mean going to war with syria and russia.
Nub_Danishmustardoverlordif you think we're gonna end up in a true (non-cold) war with russia over assad in 2016, after about 70 years of various antagonistic actions towards pro-russian regimes in the middle east, I don't know what to tell you
i'd be a lot more worried with hillary killing a lot of innocent syrian civilians, or assad's removal leading to a power vacuum that isis wins, if anything
I don't know what kind of war would be entailed, all i know is that the united states marine corps general says that to enforce it it would mean going to war with syria and russia.
It's true that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that, but there is no requirement for me to agree with him
The bottom line is, Hillary's foreign policy is pretty neo-conservative and by far the worst element of her platform, I'm not challenging that
I just think that painting her as the MORE likely candidate to start WWIII is pretty disingenuous
[quote=Nub_Danish][quote=mustardoverlord]if you think we're gonna end up in a true (non-cold) war with russia over assad in 2016, after about 70 years of various antagonistic actions towards pro-russian regimes in the middle east, I don't know what to tell you
i'd be a lot more worried with hillary killing a lot of innocent syrian civilians, or assad's removal leading to a power vacuum that isis wins, if anything[/quote]
I don't know what kind of war would be entailed, all i know is that the united states marine corps general says that to enforce it it would mean going to war with syria and russia.[/quote]
It's true that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that, but there is no requirement for me to agree with him
The bottom line is, Hillary's foreign policy is pretty neo-conservative and by far the worst element of her platform, I'm not challenging that
I just think that painting her as the MORE likely candidate to start WWIII is pretty disingenuous
mustardoverlordNub_Danishmustardoverlordif you think we're gonna end up in a true (non-cold) war with russia over assad in 2016, after about 70 years of various antagonistic actions towards pro-russian regimes in the middle east, I don't know what to tell you
i'd be a lot more worried with hillary killing a lot of innocent syrian civilians, or assad's removal leading to a power vacuum that isis wins, if anything
I don't know what kind of war would be entailed, all i know is that the united states marine corps general says that to enforce it it would mean going to war with syria and russia.
It's true that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that, but there is no requirement for me to agree with him
The bottom line is, Hillary's foreign policy is pretty neo-conservative and by far the worst element of her platform, I'm not challenging that
I just think that painting her as the MORE likely candidate to start WWIII is pretty disingenuous
I mean it's not just him whos said it obama and pretty much every high ranking person has said this. And i don't understand the logic behind everyone thinking trump would bring about world war 3 he's said he wants to have a friendlier relation with russia (its not really a world war without russia they got all the nukes) and I haven't heard anything that would start a war from him other than his plans to stop isis.
[quote=mustardoverlord][quote=Nub_Danish][quote=mustardoverlord]if you think we're gonna end up in a true (non-cold) war with russia over assad in 2016, after about 70 years of various antagonistic actions towards pro-russian regimes in the middle east, I don't know what to tell you
i'd be a lot more worried with hillary killing a lot of innocent syrian civilians, or assad's removal leading to a power vacuum that isis wins, if anything[/quote]
I don't know what kind of war would be entailed, all i know is that the united states marine corps general says that to enforce it it would mean going to war with syria and russia.[/quote]
It's true that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that, but there is no requirement for me to agree with him
The bottom line is, Hillary's foreign policy is pretty neo-conservative and by far the worst element of her platform, I'm not challenging that
I just think that painting her as the MORE likely candidate to start WWIII is pretty disingenuous[/quote]
I mean it's not just him whos said it obama and pretty much every high ranking person has said this. And i don't understand the logic behind everyone thinking trump would bring about world war 3 he's said he wants to have a friendlier relation with russia (its not really a world war without russia they got all the nukes) and I haven't heard anything that would start a war from him other than his plans to stop isis.
neither candidate is going to start a war with a nonbrown country
neither candidate is going to start a war with a nonbrown country
An old post but... thoughts? https://i.redd.it/tv56p2swm6rx.jpg
----------------------
http://endingthefed.com/just-read-the-law-hillary-is-disqualified-from-holding-any-federal-office.html#.WBbByb2CC6Y.facebook
Under Title 18 Section 2071 Hillary is disqualified for running for any office of the United States.
Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
Hillary is an exception because shes a woman checkmate
Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit [b]his[/b] office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
Hillary is an exception because shes a woman checkmate
remedyWhoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
Hillary is an exception because shes a woman checkmate
We all know that women belong in the kitchen making sandwiches not in politics. The author of the law agrees apparently. lol
[quote=remedy]Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit [b]his[/b] office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
Hillary is an exception because shes a woman checkmate[/quote]
We all know that women belong in the kitchen making sandwiches not in politics. The author of the law agrees apparently. lol
hi its me again
dollarlayer@812 -- Sorry bud, but you are not convincing me of anything. Anything I argue, I've already made up my mind on. Your views, opinions, and sources are meaningless to me, especially when they are government sources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jzBWmpzifc
Would you like to supply evidence contrary to any of the facts that I have given you? Truth is determined by evidence, not by how you feel.
There is a great irony in telling others to do "actual research" when the only argument you've made is linking youtube videos that show a lack of basic understanding of the science. A quick search of Christopher Monckton reveals that he majored in latin and journalism and has never conducted a scientific study or published a research paper in his life. He's also not even a real lord.
You have expressed your belief that politicians aren't trustworthy and presented yourself as a skeptical person, so why do you believe this politician? Have you spent any time or effort to fact check or research any of his claims? It appears that you have ignored facts in favor of a charismatic speaker with a fancy title telling you what to believe, the exact situation you convinced yourself you were avoiding.
And just to address the few points that you have brought up;
Hell even the whole fact that they largely changed the term from Global Warming to Climate Change should kind of give you a hint. They realized that they were inaccurate by saying man was responsible for an increase in co2 which directly increases temperature.
No "they" didn't, CO2 directly increasing temperature is not inaccurate and is still the scientific consensus, I implore you to find any credible literature that states otherwise. As for the terminology, global warming is simply one consequence of climate change, one does not replace the other. Climate change has become more widely used because it more accurately and broadly reflects the whole situation.
If that were the case we wouldn't see some years that were colder than others
Short term climate variability is well documented and does not disprove long term warming.
we wouldn't be seeing a large expansion of polar ice shelves. Hell even NASA says there has recently been a large increase in antarctic ice: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
You're actually correct! (But I thought NASA wasn't reliable?) Antarctica is currently gaining ice at about 80 Gt/yr. Unfortunately the Greenland ice sheet is melting at a rate of about 270 Gt/yr. That's a net loss of 190 Gt of ice every year, even while ignoring glaciers and sea ice. Were you saying something about cherry picking? Curiously enough the very article you linked explicitly states that the ice gain is slowing down, and even has a quote from the glaciologist that wrote the paper the article is summarizing explaining that the ice gain will be reversed within several decades. Surely you read this article before citing it to support your argument, right?
hi its me again
[quote=dollarlayer]@812 -- Sorry bud, but you are not convincing me of anything. Anything I argue, I've already made up my mind on. Your views, opinions, and sources are meaningless to me, especially when they are government sources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jzBWmpzifc[/quote]
Would you like to supply evidence contrary to any of the facts that I have given you? Truth is determined by evidence, not by how you feel.
There is a great irony in telling others to do "actual research" when the only argument you've made is linking youtube videos that show a lack of basic understanding of the science. A quick search of Christopher Monckton reveals that he majored in latin and journalism and has never conducted a scientific study or published a research paper in his life. He's also [url=http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2011/letter-to-viscount-monckton-20110715.pdf]not even a real lord.[/url]
You have expressed your belief that politicians aren't trustworthy and presented yourself as a skeptical person, so why do you believe this politician? Have you spent any time or effort to fact check or research any of his claims? It appears that you have ignored facts in favor of a charismatic speaker with a fancy title telling you what to believe, the exact situation you convinced yourself you were avoiding.
And just to address the few points that you have brought up;
[quote]Hell even the whole fact that they largely changed the term from Global Warming to Climate Change should kind of give you a hint. They realized that they were inaccurate by saying man was responsible for an increase in co2 which directly increases temperature.[/quote]
No "they" didn't, CO2 directly increasing temperature is not inaccurate and is still the scientific consensus, I implore you to find any credible literature that states otherwise. As for the terminology, global warming is simply one consequence of climate change, one does not replace the other. Climate change has become more widely used because it more accurately and broadly reflects the whole situation.
[quote]If that were the case we wouldn't see some years that were colder than others[/quote]
Short term climate variability is well documented and does not disprove long term warming.
[quote]we wouldn't be seeing a large expansion of polar ice shelves. Hell even NASA says there has recently been a large increase in antarctic ice: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses[/quote]
You're actually correct! (But I thought NASA wasn't reliable?) Antarctica [b]is[/b] currently gaining ice at about 80 Gt/yr. Unfortunately the Greenland ice sheet is melting at a rate of about [url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069666/full]270 Gt/yr.[/url] That's a [b]net loss[/b] of 190 Gt of ice every year, even while ignoring glaciers and sea ice. Were you saying something about cherry picking? Curiously enough the very article you linked explicitly states that the ice gain is slowing down, and even has a quote from the glaciologist that wrote the paper the article is summarizing explaining that the ice gain will be reversed within several decades. Surely you [b]read[/b] this article before citing it to support your argument, right?
dollarlayerremedyWhoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
Hillary is an exception because shes a woman checkmate
We all know that women belong in the kitchen making sandwiches not in politics. The author of the law agrees apparently. lol
Nice, is this where you start to say "I was just acting retarded all along"
[quote=dollarlayer][quote=remedy]Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit [b]his[/b] office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
Hillary is an exception because shes a woman checkmate[/quote]
We all know that women belong in the kitchen making sandwiches not in politics. The author of the law agrees apparently. lol[/quote]
Nice, is this where you start to say "I was just acting retarded all along"
H1ZI taught me to vote for trump
H1ZI taught me to vote for trump
i love getting to choose between two different neoliberal warhawks :D
i love getting to choose between two different neoliberal warhawks :D
dollarlayerHell even the whole fact that they largely changed the term from Global Warming to Climate Change should kind of give you a hint.
The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was founded 28 years ago, with that name.
Also Monckton.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
[quote=dollarlayer]Hell even the whole fact that they largely changed the term from Global Warming to Climate Change should kind of give you a hint.[/quote]
The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was founded 28 years ago, with that name.
Also Monckton.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
@ #859, I appreciate your attempt to try to continue to debate me after I believe I said I wasn't interested in reviewing your last lengthy post. This one is also TLDR, and honestly I didn't even read 1 full sentence of it. You are not going to convince me of anything. And I don't want to waste any time reading your propaganda filled post. There are plenty of websites out there dedicated to opposing mainstream climate change/global warming propaganda. My opinion: The climate has always changed, will continue to change, regardless of human activity. Human's are responsible for such a small part of "global warming" that its not even a significant factor, and there are far bigger concerns than global warming to worry about such as the pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation. It's hyped up for money and political gain. And I'll leave it at that. Please, spend some spare time viewing sources that oppose mainstream views, then make up your own mind.
@ #863: 10-15 years ago it was basically only referred to as "Global warming" and as of the last 5-10 years or so, almost all you hear is the term "Climate Change." Because they are believing that the globe isn't strictly in an upward temperature trend, but there is more to it than that. Maybe it had something to do with 2008 not following their trend prediction and being the coldest in a couple decades? I'm not sure, but the regularly used term definitely has changed from Global warming to climate change.
-----------
Back on topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5GGcGUbadY
Former FBI director calls the Clinton's a crime family.
@ #859, I appreciate your attempt to try to continue to debate me after I believe I said I wasn't interested in reviewing your last lengthy post. This one is also TLDR, and honestly I didn't even read 1 full sentence of it. You are not going to convince me of anything. And I don't want to waste any time reading your propaganda filled post. There are plenty of websites out there dedicated to opposing mainstream climate change/global warming propaganda. My opinion: The climate has always changed, will continue to change, regardless of human activity. Human's are responsible for such a small part of "global warming" that its not even a significant factor, and there are far bigger concerns than global warming to worry about such as the pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation. It's hyped up for money and political gain. And I'll leave it at that. Please, spend some spare time viewing sources that oppose mainstream views, then make up your own mind.
@ #863: 10-15 years ago it was basically only referred to as "Global warming" and as of the last 5-10 years or so, almost all you hear is the term "Climate Change." Because they are believing that the globe isn't strictly in an upward temperature trend, but there is more to it than that. Maybe it had something to do with 2008 not following their trend prediction and being the coldest in a couple decades? I'm not sure, but the regularly used term definitely has changed from Global warming to climate change.
-----------
Back on topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5GGcGUbadY
Former FBI director calls the Clinton's a crime family.
Nub_DanishI mean it's not just him whos said it obama and pretty much every high ranking person has said this. And i don't understand the logic behind everyone thinking trump would bring about world war 3 he's said he wants to have a friendlier relation with russia (its not really a world war without russia they got all the nukes) and I haven't heard anything that would start a war from him other than his plans to stop isis.
They don't have "all the nukes" and building more Nuclear Weapons at this point is meaningless on a strategic level. I believe building more Nuclear Weapons is more careless than anything else because just creating the weapon means it can fall into the wrong hands. Nobody wins in a nuclear war and tactical nuclear strikes are completely out of the question for major powers. You cannot win a Nuclear war on a first strike basis because:
Both sides have the ultimate deterrent that would guarantee mutual destruction. We have our 14+ Ohio class submarines lurking in the water with 24 Trident Missiles and the Russians have Typhoon and Borei class subs with comparable armament. That much silent and hidden nuclear power is more than enough to destroy the whole planet.
[quote=Nub_Danish]I mean it's not just him whos said it obama and pretty much every high ranking person has said this. And i don't understand the logic behind everyone thinking trump would bring about world war 3 he's said he wants to have a friendlier relation with russia (its not really a world war without russia they got all the nukes) and I haven't heard anything that would start a war from him other than his plans to stop isis.[/quote]
They don't have "all the nukes" and building more Nuclear Weapons at this point is meaningless on a strategic level. I believe building more Nuclear Weapons is more careless than anything else because just creating the weapon means it can fall into the wrong hands. Nobody wins in a nuclear war and tactical nuclear strikes are completely out of the question for major powers. You cannot win a Nuclear war on a first strike basis because:
Both sides have the ultimate deterrent that would guarantee mutual destruction. We have our 14+ Ohio class submarines lurking in the water with 24 Trident Missiles and the Russians have Typhoon and Borei class subs with comparable armament. That much silent and hidden nuclear power is more than enough to destroy the whole planet.
Coincidence that the troll volume has risen with election day getting closer?
Coincidence that the troll volume has risen with election day getting closer?
ArieThe IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was founded 28 years ago, with that name.
Also Monckton.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
Fond of a crown and portcullis on his graphs isn't he? They must be right then
[quote=Arie]The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was founded 28 years ago, with that name.
Also Monckton.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM[/quote]
Fond of a crown and portcullis on his graphs isn't he? [i]They must be right then[/i]
me irl right now
https://twitter.com/KassyDillon/status/792473792446623744
dollarlayer@ #859, I appreciate your attempt to try to continue to debate me after I believe I said I wasn't interested in reviewing your last lengthy post. This one is also TLDR, and honestly I didn't even read 1 full sentence of it. You are not going to convince me of anything. And I don't want to waste any time reading your propaganda filled post. There are plenty of websites out there dedicated to opposing mainstream climate change/global warming propaganda. My opinion: The climate has always changed, will continue to change, regardless of human activity. Human's are responsible for such a small part of "global warming" that its not even a significant factor, and there are far bigger concerns than global warming to worry about such as the pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation. It's hyped up for money and political gain. And I'll leave it at that. Please, spend some spare time viewing sources that oppose mainstream views, then make up your own mind.
@ #863: 10-15 years ago it was basically only referred to as "Global warming" and as of the last 5-10 years or so, almost all you hear is the term "Climate Change." Because they are believing that the globe isn't strictly in an upward temperature trend, but there is more to it than that. Maybe it had something to do with 2008 not following their trend prediction and being the coldest in a couple decades? I'm not sure, but the regularly used term definitely has changed from Global warming to climate change.
-----------
Back on topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5GGcGUbadY
Former FBI director calls the Clinton's a crime family.
It's mind blowing how dumb you are
[quote=dollarlayer]@ #859, I appreciate your attempt to try to continue to debate me after I believe I said I wasn't interested in reviewing your last lengthy post. This one is also TLDR, and honestly I didn't even read 1 full sentence of it. You are not going to convince me of anything. And I don't want to waste any time reading your propaganda filled post. There are plenty of websites out there dedicated to opposing mainstream climate change/global warming propaganda. My opinion: The climate has always changed, will continue to change, regardless of human activity. Human's are responsible for such a small part of "global warming" that its not even a significant factor, and there are far bigger concerns than global warming to worry about such as the pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation. It's hyped up for money and political gain. And I'll leave it at that. Please, spend some spare time viewing sources that oppose mainstream views, then make up your own mind.
@ #863: 10-15 years ago it was basically only referred to as "Global warming" and as of the last 5-10 years or so, almost all you hear is the term "Climate Change." Because they are believing that the globe isn't strictly in an upward temperature trend, but there is more to it than that. Maybe it had something to do with 2008 not following their trend prediction and being the coldest in a couple decades? I'm not sure, but the regularly used term definitely has changed from Global warming to climate change.
-----------
Back on topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5GGcGUbadY
Former FBI director calls the Clinton's a crime family.[/quote]
It's mind blowing how dumb you are
Schweppesme irl right now
https://twitter.com/KassyDillon/status/792473792446623744
Are the Reps laughing or burning?
[quote=Schweppes]me irl right now
https://twitter.com/KassyDillon/status/792473792446623744[/quote]
Are the Reps laughing or burning?
dollarlayer@ #863: 10-15 years ago it was basically only referred to as "Global warming" and as of the last 5-10 years or so, almost all you hear is the term "Climate Change." Because they are believing that the globe isn't strictly in an upward temperature trend, but there is more to it than that. Maybe it had something to do with 2008 not following their trend prediction and being the coldest in a couple decades? I'm not sure, but the regularly used term definitely has changed from Global warming to climate change.
https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU?t=10s
Your..... "point" ....is adressed from 0:10 to 0:40
:^)
[quote=dollarlayer]@ #863: 10-15 years ago it was basically only referred to as "Global warming" and as of the last 5-10 years or so, almost all you hear is the term "Climate Change." Because they are believing that the globe isn't strictly in an upward temperature trend, but there is more to it than that. Maybe it had something to do with 2008 not following their trend prediction and being the coldest in a couple decades? I'm not sure, but the regularly used term definitely has changed from Global warming to climate change. [/quote]
https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU?t=10s
Your..... "point" ....is adressed from 0:10 to 0:40
:^)
dollarlayer@ #859, I appreciate your attempt to try to continue to debate me after I believe I said I wasn't interested in reviewing your last lengthy post. This one is also TLDR, and honestly I didn't even read 1 full sentence of it. You are not going to convince me of anything. And I don't want to waste any time reading your propaganda filled post.
you are one dense motherfucker
keep smoking that tinfoil broheem
[quote=dollarlayer]@ #859, I appreciate your attempt to try to continue to debate me after I believe I said I wasn't interested in reviewing your last lengthy post. This one is also TLDR, and honestly I didn't even read 1 full sentence of it. You are not going to convince me of anything. And I don't want to waste any time reading your propaganda filled post.
[/quote]
you are one dense motherfucker
keep smoking that tinfoil broheem
Even if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.
Even if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.
ScissorsEven if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.
too bad he's a sociopath
[quote=Scissors]Even if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.[/quote]
too bad he's a sociopath
DaggerScissorsEven if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.
too bad he's a sociopath
That's not the impression I get when listening to him, I think you are getting that impression because you are used to politicians walking on eggshells and reading off scripts. He sounds just like my dad, doesn't mean he is going to start the Holocaust 2.0 Electric boogaloo like so many people seem to think for some reason.
[quote=Dagger][quote=Scissors]Even if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.[/quote]
too bad he's a sociopath[/quote]
That's not the impression I get when listening to him, I think you are getting that impression because you are used to politicians walking on eggshells and reading off scripts. He sounds just like my dad, doesn't mean he is going to start the Holocaust 2.0 Electric boogaloo like so many people seem to think for some reason.
i wouldn't vote for your dad to be president either if it makes you feel better
Trump has no real way to actually DrainTheSwamp or w/e since congress isn't going to limit its power voluntarily and any executive order trying to limit them will get overturned in 4 years when the GOP drops all support of Trump and funds a better candidate
i wouldn't vote for your dad to be president either if it makes you feel better
Trump has no real way to actually DrainTheSwamp or w/e since congress isn't going to limit its power voluntarily and any executive order trying to limit them will get overturned in 4 years when the GOP drops all support of Trump and funds a better candidate
SpaceCadetNub_DanishI mean it's not just him whos said it obama and pretty much every high ranking person has said this. And i don't understand the logic behind everyone thinking trump would bring about world war 3 he's said he wants to have a friendlier relation with russia (its not really a world war without russia they got all the nukes) and I haven't heard anything that would start a war from him other than his plans to stop isis.
They don't have "all the nukes" and building more Nuclear Weapons at this point is meaningless on a strategic level. I believe building more Nuclear Weapons is more careless than anything else because just creating the weapon means it can fall into the wrong hands. Nobody wins in a nuclear war and tactical nuclear strikes are completely out of the question for major powers. You cannot win a Nuclear war on a first strike basis because:
Both sides have the ultimate deterrent that would guarantee mutual destruction. We have our 14+ Ohio class submarines lurking in the water with 24 Trident Missiles and the Russians have Typhoon and Borei class subs with comparable armament. That much silent and hidden nuclear power is more than enough to destroy the whole planet.
all the nukes is just a meme way of saying they're a nuclear superpower and they have more nukes than the usa
[quote=SpaceCadet][quote=Nub_Danish]I mean it's not just him whos said it obama and pretty much every high ranking person has said this. And i don't understand the logic behind everyone thinking trump would bring about world war 3 he's said he wants to have a friendlier relation with russia (its not really a world war without russia they got all the nukes) and I haven't heard anything that would start a war from him other than his plans to stop isis.[/quote]
They don't have "all the nukes" and building more Nuclear Weapons at this point is meaningless on a strategic level. I believe building more Nuclear Weapons is more careless than anything else because just creating the weapon means it can fall into the wrong hands. Nobody wins in a nuclear war and tactical nuclear strikes are completely out of the question for major powers. You cannot win a Nuclear war on a first strike basis because:
Both sides have the ultimate deterrent that would guarantee mutual destruction. We have our 14+ Ohio class submarines lurking in the water with 24 Trident Missiles and the Russians have Typhoon and Borei class subs with comparable armament. That much silent and hidden nuclear power is more than enough to destroy the whole planet.[/quote]
all the nukes is just a meme way of saying they're a nuclear superpower and they have more nukes than the usa
I don't get how people think that trump is single handily going to change the entire system just because he is the president for 4 years. Yes he has power, but because of laws that everyone seems to totally ignore he cannot and will not change the institution much if at all. As much as people seem to think that he will be able to grab people like Clinton and throw her in jail or ANY other politician for that matter that is outright false. He cannot, and does not have the power to do that. There are laws that need to be followed and processes in place that even the president cannot ignore or go around. As for getting all the big money out of politics, yet again it is not likely to happen. There will be way to much push back by literally everyone else in the senate and house of reps to get anywhere. The president has the power to veto any new law but he does not have the power to create new ones himself or abolish current ones. At best things will maintain status-quo and at worse literally nothing will get done because the house and senate will be fighting over everything with Trump.Saying that he is going to come in and change the institution with his magic wand is flat out wrong because government is not like business, you cannot just strong arm people into doing what you want and many people don't seem to understand that.
I don't get how people think that trump is single handily going to change the entire system just because he is the president for 4 years. Yes he has power, but because of laws that everyone seems to totally ignore he cannot and will not change the institution much if at all. As much as people seem to think that he will be able to grab people like Clinton and throw her in jail or ANY other politician for that matter that is outright false. He cannot, and does not have the power to do that. There are laws that need to be followed and processes in place that even the president cannot ignore or go around. As for getting all the big money out of politics, yet again it is not likely to happen. There will be way to much push back by literally everyone else in the senate and house of reps to get anywhere. The president has the power to veto any new law but he does not have the power to create new ones himself or abolish current ones. At best things will maintain status-quo and at worse literally nothing will get done because the house and senate will be fighting over everything with Trump.Saying that he is going to come in and change the institution with his magic wand is flat out wrong because government is not like business, you cannot just strong arm people into doing what you want and many people don't seem to understand that.
dollarlayer@ #859, I appreciate your attempt to try to continue to debate me after I believe I said I wasn't interested in reviewing your last lengthy post. This one is also TLDR, and honestly I didn't even read 1 full sentence of it. You are not going to convince me of anything. And I don't want to waste any time reading your propaganda filled post. There are plenty of websites out there dedicated to opposing mainstream climate change/global warming propaganda. My opinion: The climate has always changed, will continue to change, regardless of human activity. Human's are responsible for such a small part of "global warming" that its not even a significant factor, and there are far bigger concerns than global warming to worry about such as the pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation. It's hyped up for money and political gain. And I'll leave it at that. Please, spend some spare time viewing sources that oppose mainstream views, then make up your own mind.
rofl I am impressed you managed to turn your computer on and get your internet working
please tell me you don't believe in evolution either
[quote=dollarlayer]@ #859, I appreciate your attempt to try to continue to debate me after I believe I said I wasn't interested in reviewing your last lengthy post. This one is also TLDR, and honestly I didn't even read 1 full sentence of it. You are not going to convince me of anything. And I don't want to waste any time reading your propaganda filled post. There are plenty of websites out there dedicated to opposing mainstream climate change/global warming propaganda. My opinion: The climate has always changed, will continue to change, regardless of human activity. Human's are responsible for such a small part of "global warming" that its not even a significant factor, and there are far bigger concerns than global warming to worry about such as the pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation. It's hyped up for money and political gain. And I'll leave it at that. Please, spend some spare time viewing sources that oppose mainstream views, then make up your own mind.
[/quote]
rofl I am impressed you managed to turn your computer on and get your internet working
please tell me you don't believe in evolution either
if life becomes more complex over time how is dollarlayer posting
checkmate atheist
if life becomes more complex over time how is dollarlayer posting
checkmate atheist