[quote=@Dynamo Frokane] [@Vilageidiotx] do me a favor and find that picture of the different racial types with the irish skull along with the white and black one [/quote] This thing? [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Scientific_racism_irish.jpg[/img] [quote=mdk]I'm betting that you're not arguing CNN was an arm of the Trump campaign. Think of every second of CNN's Trump coverage as a poorly-invested thousand dollar bill from the Clintons. [/quote] No, I don't think CNN colluded with Trump. That's the point I was making, actually, that he didn't need to buy them off because the media were more than happy to accidentally act as his media arm by covering him all the time, whether that be for sinister purposes or good ol' tabloid rubbernecking. Either way I'm pretty well convinced that the MSM Trump hates is the primary actor in getting him elected since it was them who made him the star of the show. [quote]Again, I don't think the science is consistent and I don't know how much is actually human impact. And the like I said, the heat will go down half a degree for 50 years at least...supposedly. How the hell does that work if humans are the primary cause? Will/can we argue, we aren't the biggest problem, but we are a PART of it? (and the 90 percent agree thing is total falsehood.) I mean I guess that would at least maybe stop a bit of the crazy hyper rich humans are killing the planet thing. (when third world countries are bound to be doing worse...but I think asking them to rid of their gas, when they have no electricity, is a bit pushy.) when our own air, water is cleaner than ever and we have more tree's than when we first settled in America...So I think we already are doing a pretty good job ourselves, like I said, our emissions are already going down. Yet Europe's is going up and they seem to be implementing a lot more environmental restrictions. Doesn't add up does it?[/quote] Right now you are posting one guy though. Complex science is a group effort that involves shit loads of people adding all of their work together and eeking out probabilities. You'll find one dude claiming just about anything - there are biologists who argue against evolution. And that is fine, because the multitude of evidences and arguments are necessary for something scientific to refine itself. We just can't get stuck on the idea that because there is minority dissent, the entire thing is a house of cards. [url=https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/]At this point, the consensus on global warming does lean the one way. Pretty heavily.[/url] [quote]I understand that's what they're trying to do, but it's proven so far to be a giant expensive sinkhole. I'm not saying solar panels couldn't help assist, but I doubt it will ever fully replace anything. But I also highly disagree with all subsides, of government picking winners and losers for companies. It makes the free market, much less free...this could go into many different directions, but I just think it would be more even competition without subsiding either side. And see who comes out on top, for providing energy, effective and cheap energy. (The answer isn't giant windmills. ;P)[/quote] I doubt that fossil fuel is the pinnacle of civilization. That seems incredibly unlikely considering all we have accomplished thus far. If it's not wind power it'll be something else. Though it is my understanding that the energy potential is mostly being hampered by battery tech at the moment. The problem with market deification is that the market is a very limited tool that requires quick returns, which scientific research can't always be expected to produce. We cannot expect the market to do everything for the same reason we can't expect any other single portion of our society to do all the heavy lifting. [quote]I meant he showed that he had no backbone. I don't want a president without a backbone. With things that needed a man who could say, NO. One moment was when he let two BLM protestors take over his speech, call his racist (when the dude walked in the civil rights movement.) backing down so quickly to something clearly hostile/shallow like that. I can't imagine how that would go in a more serious way. Dealing with terrorism or other nations for example. But it wasn't just that, nearly every move he made in his campaign was way too passive. That won't win elections. That's a fact. And it wasn't only to be civil either, because he bashed plenty of people, just not the people he needed to.[/quote] The BLM thing fit in with the "This is about the people, I want to hear your voice" schtick. If he had them dragged out that probably would have ended his career right there tbh. It wouldn't have fit his message. That he didn't bash people for the sake of political gain seems fine to me. He stayed on his message, that was pretty much his focus, and didn't focus on attacking his opponents. Like I said, I can respect the living shit out of a non-mudslinger. If it is true he lost and Trump won primarily because Trump was more vicious, well, that reflects poorly on us as a society. [quote]Yes, the media giving him show much screen time and everyone being so damn desperate to stop him, probably did help. But I think it was everyone's/media's behavior with the people in general that got him elected. But no, The Clinton's had way more money than he did. Donations and everything. And if I ran, it be third party. So I'd have no chance. (I'd assume same for you?) -.- But like I said, Bush one 'because you could have a beer with em' Obama won because black and pot. And Trump won because the left pulled a Microsoft...during their Xbone 1 reveal. Telling everyone, including their fans to fuck right off and deal with it. And Ps4 Trump won by doing basically nothing. "Hello, America. I don't hate all of you. Vote me." *uproarious applause* #Electionsinanutshell[/quote] Donald Trump couldn't have done what he did if he weren't rich. That's all I am saying. If he were normal folk, he would have had to dump money. What he showed is that celebrity and wealth allows you to get the Presidency with a smaller campaign budget. Which, to me, isn't really that inspirational. In an ideal situation I would prefer to be an independent, of course. That probably wouldn't be realistic though... they don't usually do very well. I mean, it's what, Bernie Sanders and Ross Perot that managed to snatch national attention as Indepenents? Cool company, but not super successful company. And yeh, that break down is pretty good, but it goes further back then that. [img]https://americanorchard.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/harrison-log-cabin-campaign.jpg[/img] William Henry Harrison was a man you voted for because he drank hard liquor like a proper country boy.