There's nothing human about the cunt. He's satan.

The concept of Satan, demons and monsters are humanity's way of diverting blame and responsibility from themselves instead of accepting what they truly are capable of, as opposed to all other known forms of life.

Humanity blows. Trump is human. Ergo, Trump blows.

www.trumpdonald.org

Blow Trump

Post
 

Electoral College

Doesn’t “Large tracts of land don’t have political interests that need consideration” contradict “A popularly elected president would have to appeal to vast swathes of the electorate,” though?
To be fair, based on how bizarre 2016 was, that almost sounds sane.
Trump didn’t really have it that easy. Hillary pretty much had the mainstream media in a handbasket, allowing the public to see Trump’s sins shown for the world to see on a daily basis, denying him “talent for low intrigue.” not to mention she had all the celebrity support (who’s more recognizable, a businessman or a movie star?) for the “little arts of popularity”. Logically, she would have won; heck, she took the popular vote by storm.
What you said is very reasonable. However, don’t forget that the President and Congress often end up bitterly opposed to one another (which is what our founding fathers wanted, a quarreling federal government that doesn’t get too much done in too little time); there’s a reason “lame ducks” are a thing. The President and Congress are much more unified when they’re part of the same political party (something our founding fathers didn’t consider, and what George Washington warned against in his parting speech), which leads into what you said next:
If you ask me, a popular vote system just neuters third parties and indie candidates even more. Look at Evan McMullin – he won a substantial chunk of Utah’s voters, at 21%. This might sound insignificant, but “a fifth of Utah” is a lot more galvanizing than “less than one percent of the total US population.” Once the day arrives when a third party/independent candidate seizes the electoral votes of even a single state, that will rock America’s political world more than any percentage could.
Aside from that, could you elaborate how abolishing the Electoral College would loosen the two-party system? Yes, our two main political parties do have electors of their own in every state, but I don’t think they really need the Electorate to survive. They would need their hold over Congressional elections loosened as well, somehow.

Trump and his Policies
I’m guessing the neighborhood was filled with loud yapping around the clock.
It's not that large latino populations are the issue (heck, it was Florida’s large population of Cubans, who often lean conservative, that allowed the state to go red). There's this general concern that people who live here contrary to the law (not saying latinos; Trump got heckled by an illegal Brit one time) will also live contrary to the law.
Alright, truly dangerous illegals are often the same ones that take the effort to cross the border multiple times (and, likely, will continue to do so, and probably succeed). All the other illegals likely apply to neither, and are therefore not much to worry about. I can see that.
However, saying that this renders any strengthening of border defense futile is very much like saying that there’s no hope in having some technicians fix a broken computer, since banging on it to make it go faster didn’t work already – the “banging” being self-defeating catch-and-release tactics (which Trump ended through an executive order). Maybe taking them in for a more in-depth background check will be more effective? We’ll have to see.
Self-esteem is a valuable trait for leaders to have. It gives them the confidence that they are fit to rule, and that their decisions are what’s best for their people. There’s also the fact that leaders are the voice of their people. What is better: a leader willing to accept any deal, or a leader too proud to let their country’s interests go unheard?
It’s not that the Electoral College benefitted him, it’s that it bowed to the will of their states despite his fears that they were a political oligarchy, and the “rigged system’s” last line of defense. If some random third-party candidate won, and the Electoral College went with them, Trump wouldn’t continue his anti-electorate rhetoric, since it clearly wouldn’t be part of the rigged system there, either.
Basically, he changed his tune because he was proven wrong, and he happily admitted it.
In the case that you’re wrong, and Trump turns out to be pretty good/not nearly as bad as people thought, would you be disappointed, or pleasantly surprised?
Ehhh, kind of? The tariff was going to be implemented anyway, since protectionism (which revolves around sabotaging trade relationships) was always one of Trump’s biggest platforms. Any money the United Sates loses out on trade would, hypothetically, be made up for by the return of industry.
Again, that doesn’t prove that he’s against the tariff. I’ll concede that it doesn’t really prove he’s for it, either. All it proves is that he knows it’s going to have “a huge impact” of some kind, good or bad.
Well, first of all, we need to beat ISIS. That’s another campaign promise of his, so it could go hand-in-hand with ending the refugee crisis. I do know that Trump trusts the judgement of his Secretary of Defense, General Mattis (for example, Trump used to be pro-torture, since ISIS does it, too; however, Mattis convinced him that torture doesn’t work).
You say that I fall back on the “convenient immigrant boogeyman,” yet amidst your defense of your sources, your only rebuttal to mine is that it’s right-wing and anti-Islam. Would I be correct to dismiss your sources just because I don’t agree with them?
We’ll see.
That implies that only a like-minded crowd of xenophobes would be comfortable siding with Trump. What about the ex-Democrat liberals who refused to toe the party line? The disgruntled libertarians who’ve had enough of identity politics being the number one issue? The vengeful Bernie fans who found out what happened to his campaign through WikiLeaks? The apolitical netizens who are in it purely for the memes? It’s a big, varied crowd that’s fun to hang out with. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Likewise, you have my sympathies. Having your visions of international cooperation shattered by Brexit, dreams of a female POTUS canned by Trump’s victory, and witnessing multiculturalism become increasingly rejected by the West (with a rebirth of conservatism leading the charge) must be a nightmare. If it’s any consolation, remember that the political pendulum will eventually swing back to the left.
(Also… Trump’s only a fascist-enabler in the sense that his victory in the election has sparked violent protests run by people unwilling to see the status quo die, who see fit to physically lash out against their detractors, rather than let them be heard.)
Nep? Is that you?

I don’t see how you can believe one point but not the other, it makes no sense…. Of course third-parties would have a higher chance of winning the presidency if we didn’t have an electoral college. The electoral college is filled primarily with Republicans and Democrats. Remove that, and you remove party biasm, which removes part of the competition between the two parties and ergo it would negate the “two-party system” we’ve semi-legitimately had for like 200 years. If we leaned more towards being a true Democracy over a Republic in this odd hybrid system we have, it would be more fair because you would honestly be elected directly as a result of how the American people as a whole feel about you as an individual candidate at that time. Each third-party vote would equate to like 10x as much as it would otherwise. You should see those videos that guy posted a few posts ago, it was really in-depth and interesting.

Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue just like it is for literally every country that has ever defined its borders. There is no questioning that we should always have a border patrol and we should always take measures to deal with people who are here illegally – they live with no paper trail or a falsified one, drive in our streets with no insurance, and our tax payer’s money supports them wrongfully should they get on some kind of welfare.

But the thing is, this is exactly what makes them an easy scape goat. A good political scape goat rises from a legitimate issue, with actual merit to it, encouraging the support of people who have a problem with the issue while exaggerating its actual effects on a national scale. I believe that is how Trump rose to power – aside from being a Republican and besides the Electoral College. Just like how Hillary jumped on whatever liberal attitudes were popular in this generation, Trump jumped on what was a popular scape goat for people who take the example of non-Americans using American services to help themselves – the same people who preach about how socialized anything makes us into a “hand-out country” and all that. Trump kept talking about how he’d get rid of Obamacare, but now he’s back and forth with that because I honestly don’t think he knows what kind of system could replace it. Once again, people inherently find it easier to resent foreigners. Even legal ones.

While I believe we could use some better border control, the wall does not seem like a very effective idea. Like you said, better background checks sound like a better direction. And as Nate said earlier, about 40% of illegals come into the country via plane. Build a wall, and you’d see those same people try to move in that direction. But again… Maybe our problem would actually be lessened if we STREAMLINED the immigration process and made it easier for people to come here legally, and start legitimate, honest lives that could produce something helpful to the nation like any other American employee.


Self Esteem = “Confidence in one’s own worth or abilities”, Ego = “A person’s sense of self-esteem OR self-importance”. The two are very similar, but can mean different things. He was not saying self-esteem is a bad thing, that’s retarded. He was saying an inflated EGO, as in, a shallow, arrogant sense of self-worth makes for a very bad leader. Trump is confident. But he’s also AMAZINGLY arrogant. He thinks he’s the greatest person who ever fucking lived…. Just look at the way he’s talked against his opponents before, or about his own campaign or his upbringing. He was so proud of himself for “inventing his slogan once at a golf game”, when in reality, the whole “Make America Great Again” was actually thought of first by the REAGAN campaign. Trump is far from humble. Arrogance can cloud judgement. Clouded judgement is bad for a leader. A leader should never EVER make decisions based on the will of their ego.

All of those protests outside suggest otherwise. Of course not everyone in the country at any given time feels the same, but this time it looks like there’s more actual Americans who disagree with his voice vs the people whose votes counted more than other human beings. Hence, the Electoral College.

Uhhh, NEITHER!! What the fuck??? No leader should accept any kind of deal... They need to be reasonable enough to think it through. And that’s exactly what Trump didn’t do when it came to the negotiations with Mexico. He promised us that they’d reimburse us later because that’s what was “agreed on” allegedly, but there is absolutely no legal binding anywhere stating that they are supposed to. Either Trump lied to us in that comment, or he’s enough of an idiot to take someone’s word for it – which might I add is something a business man if anything should be cautious of. Mexico’s giving us the middle finger now. The wall is getting built, and WE’RE paying for it – not Mexico. Their president literally said they left because Trump “could not be negotiated with”. And all that talk about the Tariffs still don’t seem very reassuring. Meanwhile, Trump is too proud to accept that his idea may not be the best for our interests.

Before you’ve defended Trump by saying some of his actions may be because he made the promises and he’s just coming through with what he said for consistency. Well to that, I object – if he didn’t really think those promises were very smart after thinking it through he should be honest enough to prepare a speech trying to convince the people he made this promise to why said idea may need revision. That would be an act of letting his pride down.
I don’t think he would have to be totally honest. And more on that, I haven’t actually heard him talking about how he was proven wrong – which would be much more respectable. From the quotes I’ve heard, he seems to just be brushing what he’s said in the past under the rug embarrassingly. I haven’t seen a speech where he talks in-depth about WHY the electoral college is a good thing after all and WHY the American people should have more faith in it.

He won because of the electoral college, meanwhile it feels as if like 80% of the actual people living in the country are furious because of that. I’d love to see what would have happened if in 2016 we elected our candidates in a completely straight forward manner. Everyone seems to be ignoring Phylum’s sources, so I’m just gonna repost them here. Their content sounds like a better argument as to why the Electoral College is bad, meanwhile I have yet to hear a really great convincing argument as to why we still need it.

Are you talking about those people running away from ISIS and other groups down in the middle east? The people who would be slaughtered if more countries turned them down? The only way to end that crisis would be to either turn them all down for the betterment of ourselves and accept the death of the only reasonable people from those countries, or get better at dealing with the constant bullshit they have there. Which is easier said than done. Plus, you can’t fight an ideology – ISIS is a terrorist organization, and they recruit extremists in other countries by convincing them that they have to do god’s work. I’m not knowledgeful enough to know how to combat ISIS better than we are, but Trump’s reaction to that seems to be to discriminate against Muslims and people of Iranian blood or other nationalities.
The places you linked from are known extremist’s sites and there is no defending that. I don’t even follow media much and even I can tell that. I remember them now that I’ve seen them again. I’ve seen people like The Amazing Atheist call them out on their bullshit before, they actually falsify data sometimes from what I remember. Especially the last one.

There's so many words I keep losing track of what's happening in this thread

They did consider it, though. A government made up of a single unified party is an authoritarian regime. They didn't want the country to be founded on authoritarianism, but they also didn't want a two party system because it invites corruption too easily. With several dissenting views present, rather than just two parties dicking up the place split 50/50 and shutting down the government every few months because of polarization, people come to a middle ground far more easily because it'd be split up in a way where some parties would be more inclined to go for x, while others would go for y, and a few would go for z.

The party loyalty pressure would still be there, but instead of there being a hard split down the center you'd have Libertarians, for example, voting in favour of stuff like net neutrality and suppressing government interference along side the Democrats likely voting for net neutrality while voting for more government interference and Republicans voting against net neutrality and against government interference. It would actually allow things to get passed, and the president would stop being so at odds with congress. Sure they may represent a party, or they could be totally independent, but with more varying views within congress it prevents shut downs and roadblocks from happening as often as they do with a two party system.

Candidates that are native to a state regardless of party affiliation are likely to either win the state or win a large chunk of the state. McMullin is an example of this, as is Reagan.

A popular vote system tells people that their votes actually matter, and will likely lead to a significantly higher voter turn out. One of the major reasons people don't bother voting is because with the system we currently have, they feel like their vote doesn't matter worth a damn. (x)(x)

With the winner-take-all nature of the electorate on top of the fact that they've never actually exercised their "true purpose", hypothetically a third party member could win the popular vote in a landslide but not get a single electoral vote because they didn't win enough counties in every state. That's absolutely garbage and I find it hard to defend a system where that's possible. It's like when you posted that picture of the electoral map for the 2016 elections. PA, and MI were within 1% of a loss for Hillary in those states. FL and WY were within 5%. Hell, even down to the counties, the county I had voted in Trump had only won by about 3%, and it was in an incredibly loyal red county that has never come that close to flipping before.

Also, none of the third party candidates in any of the elections since 1924 I believe that won counties across the nation got a single electoral vote. Even if you really firmly believe the electoral college needs to stay, at the very least I believe you can agree that the winner-take-all aspect of the electorate needs to be dropped. And even then, what happens if they win the popular vote nation wide, but other parties cut in front by having a 1-10% lead on them in every county? The winner as dictated by the electoral college would be be absolutely crushed when comparing who got the popular vote of that election cycle.

There's obviously a lot of things that need to be done to get us to where we need to be. We need future generations to be properly educated on how our system works so we're not so polarized with the road bump of party loyalty from causing as much clashes within our congress. We need to give rural Americans steady living and education so they're given the opportunity to actually look into the candidates available and don't impulse vote because someone said they're gonna create jobs they're desperate for or just vote party loyalty because they believe their party always has their best interests in mind and aren't subject to changing as time goes on, and so on. We need to severely overhaul our election system to give a fair chance to people who aren't backed entirely by big business and banks. We need to get more variety in congress, and the best way to do that is likely to give more coverage for non-presidential elections within the communities they effect. And so on, and so on...

I do firmly believe that the electoral college remains one of our biggest roadblocks to allowing a third party candidate a chance at taking office. There's a lot of hypothetical situations regarding any of the elections in the past century I could pull up, but at this point I think you see my POV and understand why I feel the way I do. I can also see why you feel the way you do and I feel like, unless something said is unclear or contradictory, this is a good point to agree to disagree and part ways with the conversation. At least, in a public space. I'm chill with chatting in private about it from time to time but this thread is a big ol mess of text walls so I'd be more than glad to ditch it.

Honestly I hardly noticed it over the city ambiance. It just sort of blends in.

It's pretty much rule of thumb that latino populations largely vote red.

And I get that, but that concern is only caused from fear mongering by people who have that whole nationality superiority complex (xenophobia, radical nationalism). It's why there's some criticism on referring to undocumented immigrants as 'illegals'. Being here past the time you were permitted isn't a criminal offense, just strongly discouraged because the state can't keep an eye on you, and you can't be arrested for it in the majority of states unless you do commit a crime while here undocumented. Once you do commit a crime while undocumented, you're permanently barred entry from the country.

It's a fairly irrational concern to believe that someone who lives here without the right visa is by default a criminal. It's not too far off to compare it to refugees with free range but far far more to lose by being here. If you moved or escaped to some place, you'd likely want to stay there, especially if you have a family. You wouldn't want to risk separation or putting them or yourself at risk. It's why first generation immigrants are usually so good for communities and the economy: because they're on their best behavior lest they be kicked out permanently or imprisoned.

That's also not what I was saying. And a more accurate comparison would be upgrading a perfectly functional $2k tower to like a $20k tower with 5 gpus and 500tb of memory and 160gb of ram and a whole load of other shit that's beyond overkill and a total blubbering waste of money and resources.

What the fuck would you do with all that??? Why would you even do that when what you have right now is perfectly functional?

If you really wanted to "tighten the border" just have more security trained and patrolling the border. It'd be cheaper, it generates jobs, and it doesn't take 10 years and impose even more on the environment and our wildlife. As far as the jobs that building the wall would create goes, let's go back to all that infrastructure that needs fixing up because our infrastructure is severely lacking, to say the least. Mmm, infrastructure.

Ego and self-esteem/confidence are not one and the same. I am not criticizing Trump for having confidence – I’m criticizing him for being egotistic.


So… he claimed it was rigged because he thought he was going to lose, then he unexpectedly won, so now he’s happy and thinks it isn’t rigged? That is not a sign of a proper statesman – you don’t baselessly accuse the system of being rigged just because you think you’re losing.

So you haven’t changed that:
But even then, he hasn’t changed his tune, because he’s still making completely baseless claims about vote rigging!


You make it sound like it’s a TV show or something. My metric for Trump being a successful president is based on how the US and the rest of the world’s people come out the other side – and right now he seems to be running roughshod over all sorts of people.


But the issue here is that Trump is trying to effectively put the genie back in the bottle – he’s not imposing tariffs to protect the producers in America, he’s hoping that killing trade with Mexico will bring industries that are gone back from the dead.

And again, this doesn’t change the fact that putting tariffs on Mexican trade means that Americans will be paying for the wall, not Mexicans.


“Imposed” is a very loaded word in that statement which should tell you the intent, and if he was positive he probably would have said so in more certain terms. I doubt the numerous outlets who covered it with negative headlines would have gotten that sentiment from nowhere, either.


To be clear, Mattis has not changed Trump’s mind – Trump has just said that he will leave the decision up to Mattis; he still “absolutely” believes torture works. Don’t spread misinformation.

Anyway, you don’t beat ISIS by pissing off more Muslims and validating terrorists’ anti-US rhetoric and turning away vulnerable refugees.


The issue here is that while I’ve identified how your source is biased and provided sources to back this up, all you’ve done is say you feel like my sources are biased and described why you feel they might be biased.


I’m sure. In the meantime, we can enjoy Trump’s continuing conflicts of interest and abusing his power for nepotistic ends.


No it doesn’t, and I don’t know why you’re suggesting that. Anyone who feels like they benefit from siding with Trump will do so. The point is that people supporting Trump are enabling him, and he in turn is enabling and empowering some of the worst corners of the political spectrum.




I feel like I’ve seen this argument before, do they pass out cue sheets for you all to stay on-message or what?

easiest one of these yet pic.twitter.com/GswVV5t2xM

— jonbenet rammstein (@adequateGF) February 2, 2017

Let me be the first to say that I honestly didn't give a shit about Hillary being a woman. More so, I think it's wrong for anyone to have cared much about that fact alone. Being a woman should not have any kind of an effect on being a presidential candidate. You're sexist no matter which way you look at that - a woman would not be a better leader because she is a woman and she would not be worse because of that either. A large message in Hillary's campaign was basically "I am a woman", which honestly pissed me the hell off. I'm sympathetic towards basic feminist issues at least since I'm an egalitarian and a reasonable person - but today, feminism in America has become increasingly irrational and discriminatory towards men. If anything, candidates like Bernie Sanders were more logical picks for an advocate of women's rights.

EDIT: So with that put aside, how about them Environmental Protection Agencies?

NEWPOST.exe
 

Electoral College
Those points really don’t contrast at all. First I state that I believe that a popular vote system neuters third parties, then I ask how abolishing the Electoral College would help third parties. If the only alternative to the Electoral College is a popular vote, then adopting that sole alternative means crippling third parties.

Then we should also remove Congress, since both legislative houses are filled primarily with Republicans and Democrats?

The fact that the Republican and Democratic Parties would still dominate in Congress (as opposed to third parties) regardless of the Electoral College’s existence means that, as powerful political entities, they would still be sponsoring presidential candidates. The public would look at those two candidates the most, as it always does. In other words, removing the Electoral College does nothing to shake our two-party system’s grip on society.
*watches*

Alright, a few things about Video #1: The guy says that the point of the Electoral College is so that presidents pay attention to those smaller states. This is in spite of the fact that presidential races, as we know them now, did not even exist back in the day. The Electoral College protects the interests of those states, plain and simple (which, due to his above assertion now void, means the Electoral College is doing its job).

As for Video #2… December 19th of 2016 was a good example of how the video portrayed a false interpretation of how the Electoral College works. A unique example, at that, since Hillary supporters were holding out for the Electoral College to do the same thing that the video demonizes, and vote for Hillary instead of Trump (against the will of their states). Neither these delusions, nor the video itself, reflected reality that day, since state governments tend to have some measures against unfaithful electors, such as a fine, or outright denying their request (consider the elector in Maine who wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders, but was shot down).

Sounds alright to me.

Trump and His Policies
I wouldn’t say he’s egotistical, but my reasoning’s further down.

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/...x/73228637.jpg
I wonder why these totally organic protests don’t try moving out of Hillary-voting liberal cities, rather than go somewhere else to riot and destroy infrastructure…

Well, I’m glad we agree that presidents shouldn't just take any deal (although why you disagree with a president rejecting a deal that's not in their country's best interests is beyond me). And Trump’s pride in himself and our country will be a good asset in terms of negotiating.

“Something a business man should be cautious of?” Are you a billionaire who won the presidential election? What leads you to believe you’re better at negotiating than he is? Need I remind you that Trump managed to get CNN, MSNBC, and Fox to pay for his campaign (figuratively, of course)?

You’re seeing the tariffs (which you said you agreed with earlier, since business wouldn’t exploit low-wage labor in Mexico) as an afterthought when they’re one of the prime instruments in getting this whole plan to work. How can Mexico be holding all the cards, when they stand to lose their outsource-fueled industries to the basic principles of price affecting purchase? A rise in unemployment won’t help against the cartels. Neither will stronger border control, which will force Mexicans who don’t like the way their country is to stay put. Public dissent will rise, and that’s not something I believe the corrupt, cartel-bribed government of Mexico is ready for.

Well, he’s getting to work on the former, based on Section 8 of this executive order.

As for repairing infrastructure… Trump’s plan to bring back jobs (manufacturing, coal, etc.) will, assuming success, fix infrastructure by providing employment and income (some of which goes to taxes). This will help sustain more direct methods of fixing infrastructure in a way that the usual loans and bailouts could not.

(Also, where are the 10-year estimates coming from? Do they take into account the rugged, unbuildable terrain in East Texas where the wall is planned to end (not the entire border)?)
Could you spare a bit of time to look back on my comment?

Doesn’t look like I said it was because he thought he was losing, then he didn’t. Looks more like he was not afraid to admit he was proven wrong. Then again, could it be because neither of us can read Trump’s mind, much less the person who hasn’t stayed well-updated on Trump, and watched his campaign and “thank you” rallies (and thus, is unfamiliar with how he operates)?
Article written: Friday 21 October 2016

Can we turn this time machine around real quick? Just real quick. Trump’s improved his pro-Voting ID rhetoric a LOT, now that his claims have support.
“Make it sound like a TV show?” Well, close, this is an internet community. We’re free to talk to each other as we please, be it asking questions, answering them, or declining to answer.
Also, I’m just nitpicking here, but I wouldn’t factor “the rest of the world’s people” into whether Trump is a successful president of the United States in the end. Whether he’s a successful leader of the free world (a role which his “America first” mantra implies he doesn’t prioritize) is more appropriate.
Anyway, thank you for your response.
And China, don’t forget China. I won’t act like there’s something you don’t understand, since you demonstrated your understanding pretty well:
Yet you still ask what kind of magic wand Trump has. If you can say that Trump’s presidency is going rocky so far (implying how the rest of his term will go), then I can say that Trump’s progress on bringing back jobs isn’t half bad (implying how the rest of his term will go).

And again, you haven’t explained how, exactly, encouraging the purchase of less expensive non-Mexican products (with prices lowered even further by Trump lowering the business tax) means Americans are paying for the wall. The same goes for increasing visa prices and taxing/forbidding fund wiring to Mexico.
So now we’re going into the connotations of words. Where you see “imposed” as a grudging description of Trump’s intentions, I see an apt description of the strength behind Trump’s decision. I’m sure Trump would agree, given he himself said he would “impose” such a tax. Hey, maybe him using the word “impose” influenced Mark Fields’s choice of words, as well?

Also, in case you didn’t notice, “the numerous outlets” have tried to spin everything against Trump for a while (which often plays into his own hands). Something tells me they won’t give that up any time soon, either.
So you concede that Trump is not opposed to trusting the judgement of others over his own on issues? Rather than just fire them, like President Jackson did repeatedly when cabinet members didn’t do as he said? Doesn’t seem very egotistical of him. It’s almost like he’s behaving presidentially.
Yes, let’s beat ISIS by using the exact same strategies we’ve been using in the constantly worsening Middle East for decades, rather than change the formula. I mean, it’s not as if Trump’s travel ban WASN’T targeting Muslims… right?



Surely Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Nigeria must be on this "Muslim ban" list?

Did you get our posts mixed up?
The most “identifying” you did to my source is a grand total of one sentence about how it has a right-wing bias and is anti-Islam. Rather than back that up, you then went on to restate the two sources I disagreed with earlier; you did not compare your sources’ points with mine in any way. All you did was, as I said, dismiss my source because you don’t agree with it.
Meanwhile, this is what I said:
Did I mention bias in there? I’m looking at this post of mine, and I can’t find a single accusation of bias. All I did was identify your sources’ points, and explain how I believe the reasoning behind these points is faulty.
I only ever mentioned bias when you, I’ll say it again, dismissed my source in its entirety due to the point of view of who wrote it. Even then, I only did that to provide a hypothetical scenario where I dismiss your sources for a similar reason. And not even because of bias!
Did I say that I felt your sources were biased? I’m looking at this post of mine, and I can’t find a single accusation of your sources being biased, just that I didn’t agree with them; either way, however, I brought up your sources’ points and, rather than dismiss them, explain why I thought they were wrong. Sadly, it seems you cannot afford to respond likewise.


I brought that up because you said so yourself:
Unless you mean to say that siding with someone is the same as being comfortable doing so. In that case, why did you assume that backing Trump gets tiring if that would mean I’m not comfortable backing him?
You seem to be skirting around the issue. Do you, or do you not, agree that actions against Trump and his supporters reflect fascism far more than anything Trump or his supporters have done, and would you substantiate your claim?
(By the way, we couldn’t have cue sheets passed out if we wanted to; we’re a social media-based grassroots movement, and don’t have centralized coordination. Not like groups like Antifa and CTR, which are externally funded. We’re not even that well-off on social media, if you look at cases like Reddit censorship of The_Donald, and Twitter shadowbanning Trump supporters.)
(Off-topic, but, apparently, there was a debate between Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. I’m assuming you’re more engaged with (and more knowledgeable of) Bernie’s activity than I am, so did you happen to catch any of it?)
I’m going to be honest, I don’t know squat about the EPA (other than that they were pretty helpful in stopping DDT usage), so most of what I’m about to say is stuff I looked up.
Anyway, protecting the environment sounds good (I think we’re already at the point where everyone gets “pollution = bad”), but the EPA’s worthy of suspicion like any other government body. The most relevant bone to pick with the EPA is that it kept quiet about the lack of corrosion prevention in Flint, Michigan’s pipes. That article explains that it was due to technicalities in how issues like water safety are split between federal and state governments (the EPA got into a stalemate with Michigan’s own Department of Environmental Quality over pipe regulations), and it took months for the EPA to receive guidance on taking matters into its own hands (too late to prevent the crisis). From this, it’s clear that, from how the EPA is currently structured, it can’t respond immediately to potential crises.
In another incident, this time in 2015, EPA agents accidentally caused contaminated water to flood out of a gold mine, and into the Animas River (which feeds into the Colorado River), apparently due to a failure to communicate between the team and its leader; the leader was waiting for the Bureau of Reclamation’s advice on how to handle removal of mine debris, while the team proceeded with removal (they assumed they could judge the mine’s water level without carrying out standard procedures).
In both cases, it seems like the EPA’s biggest problem is communication shortcomings, both with other federal agencies and within its own ranks. I don’t know how any solutions to this would work out (I can’t think of any similar cases). Personally, I’d prefer reform; it looks like the EPA is meant to take the role of an arbiter between federal regulations and the states’ responsibility to enforce them, so giving it more power to publish its own findings (without having to communicate), and less power to intervene (leave it to the states, which will be pressured to act by these findings, lest they take sole responsibility for catastrophes), would maintain this role. I think we can both agree that just axing it is jumping the gun, though.

I just want to know what decade Trump is aiming for when he Makes America Great Again.