Donald Trump is a scientist and the best environmental plan

he's not wrong
clean air would be healthier you edgy /pol/ack

>>8467044
He's right. Air pollution kills thousands directly every year and we actually do something about that.

I fucking hate Trump and voted Hillary, but at least he seems to actually be in touch with industry and real STEM professionals not pop-sci eco chambers.

>>8467066
>>8467064
pop-sci celebs are going to get BTFO
clean air clean water let bangladesh drown

But doesn't he think vaccines are dangerous?

Global warming probably isn't real.
Climate change is.

>>8467044
Yet another moron who doesnt realise that global warming causes extremes of temperature, not just generally warmer weather all the time

>>8467064
>clean air would be healthier
.. so we still should pollute less? guess we're all on the same boat then.

>>8467099
this.. though the net temprature still rises globaly

Cry more bitch nigger

>>8467078
that would be Jill Stein

>>8467166
He's made one or two remarks that could put him into her boat. Although that doesn't say much. He's thrown so much crazy shit on the wall in the past its hard to find a crazy train he hasn't ridden at least once.

File: 1470122488835.png (54KB, 629x360px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 629x360px

>>8467078
>>8467166
And Trump

>>8467185
Some people are saying you need to put a little bit of CLEAN AIR into the chamber of the syringe before you administer the shot, and then you don't have to worry about autism. I don't know. That's what they are saying. You tell me.

>>8467204
If they shoot air into your veins, autism will be the last thing to worry about.

>>8467216
Not true. Shooting up air into your veins actually isnt that harmful, even if it were a full 100cc syringe. Your lungs have a natural defense mechanisms for "popping" air bubbles in your veins.
Source: Used to shoot up a lot. Shot up a lot of air once and freaked out, researched it, and came to find out even a highly large amount of air in your veins would cause very little damage.

>>8467166
The greens match the republicans pound for pound on scientific illiteracy.
Postdocs' Junta when??

File: 1477441302579.png (302KB, 549x443px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 549x443px

>"G-global warming is a liberal hoax"
>yfw he will still fund ways to prevent it because we'll be fucked otherwise

Isn't it colder from the cold water going into the oceans

>>8467073
>let bangladesh drown

Why can't everyone just git gud like the Dutch?

>>8467105
this

>>8467229
My hope is that he realizes how important it is after the pentagon sits him down and gives him some real talk from this sort of angle:

http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710

Given who he selected to head the EPA, I'm not feeling optimistic though.

>>8467229
No, he won't. You guys need to organise now and retake the congress in 2018 and make Trump a lame duck. And then take the presidency in 2020. The damage he will cause can still be very much contained if you people start to organize. I'm really not sure if your country will survive another Dubya-tier shit presidency.

Also, Trump really shows how ultimately unimportant your country has become. The whole world including China and Russia is agreeing to take steps against global warming. If the USA doesn't, that's sad, but at the end of the day it will not stop the rest of the world from saving the planet. Trump is really accelerating your downfall. By a lot.

>>8467988
this

>>8467988
>The damage
Pls. Have you seen the markets? A new golden age is being ushered in. Our private benefactors just DOUBLED our research grants and I work in fucking clean pipelord energy (solar shift reactors).

Just the promise of tax cuts and cutting of welfare babies and Chemical Engineering is on track to create a petroleum free plastics and maybe even energy economy. Cutting petro and shale prematurely is just stupid, we need it until the technology is there for real clean energy and not just high entropy memeshit with pretty green frontend in a stock photo.

Good times ahead for all (unless you're a NEETscum liberal arts major).

File: 1467062442721.gif (2MB, 500x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x404px

>>8467185
>the next president tweets like pic related
Gonna be an interesting time for sure.

>>8467998
>anecdotal "evidence"
>how can there be global warming if it's snowing right now?!

>>8468007
Typical leftard liberal art major NEET confusing me with righttard trailer trash.

I'm more aware on climate change science than you. Of course it's happening. I'm just also aware of the studies on how high entropy and indirectly polluting """green""" technologies are, they are even worse than coal and petro. The companies that are investing the most into clean, sustainable (and realistic) energy technologies than anyone else, far more than public sector.


Pls update your worldview to one that isn't based of off a fake news show. People that are smarter than both of us are fixing the climate change issue in a way that doesn't destroy the economy while starving billions of people and not actually helping to reduce net GH gasses.

>>8467988
no, a lame duck would be worse than trump.
and trump isn't even that bad, you're just cucked by the liberal owned media

come up for air out of that fishbowl sometime

> clean air
> oregon votes against him

wew lads

File: 1476929725056.jpg (205KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 960x1280px

>>8467988
you're reacting to the political weather of the day, instead of the climate


the climate is good, gays have rights, trump cant' take them away.

but if you burned the flag in protest, you can get fucked.

>>8468012
I love how Euros are still holding on to their leftard eco chamber without realizing how their elections are going to turn out next year.

>>8468016
Trump is a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, atheist. People should stop watching CNN, selectively showing clips is just as dishonest as outright lying and fabrication. Even RT is better at this point.

>>8468010
That was just an exampleof how you didn't really deliever an argument, you just spit out some trivial anecdote (my company is doing good and investing in green energy, so every company is doing good and investing in green energy).

>>8468019
>>>/pol/

You can't complain about unwanted immigration and then immigrate to a board where you are not wanted.

You have to go back.

>>8468025
Because I am just spouting shit.

It's as if you believe I'm trying to convince you of anything.

I'm not. People like you have no power over anything important and never will. I don't care what you think and I don't care how you vote.


Take your gay ass debate shit and "muh logical fallacies xD" fedora shit back to >>>/pol/.

>>8468012
I rarely consume media, and especially not your low-quality bullshit american media. I simply looked at Trump's webpage. Trump is not propsing anything new. He will just implement Bush-style shit policies, minus the free trade, which will fuck you up even more.

The US is not that stable. You are owing around 4 trillion dollars to foreign government. Trumps policies are going to increase the american debt even more. He is the worst possible president for your social peace. He has an unfavorability rating of 60% or so. Most people hate him. Everything that is wrong with America will just become even wronger with him. There is no reason for optimism.

>>8468026
This.

/thread

>>8468026
Don't like immigrants? Don't immigrate your low IQ ass here.
>>>/r/eddit
>>>/mlp/
>>>/trash/

>>8468028
go away you homophobic SJWtard

>>8468081
>>8468088
samefag

don't make me find all of your posts on /sci/ faggot

>>8468099
Please do. I wanna see if your low IQ assumption skills that predicted bernies and clintons victory still holds.

oh wait...

>>8467185
>AUTISM. Many such cases!
4chan in a nutshell

>>8467044
i am 100% supporting his statement
even if there is a global warming effect, i don't see a problem becouse it is fucking cold here and a more warming earth would be good.

Also global warming myth was created by atom industry to label nuclear energy as green energy.

>>8467044
Call it whatever you want, package it however you want. We all benefit from a cleaner planet, and if it delays or prevents climate change, that's a nice byproduct.

>>8468645
We'd all benefit from free schooling for life and free everything else. The realistic question is whether something warrants what we give up for it (i.e. opportunity cost)
Denying climate change outright as a means of opposing climate -legislation- is irresponsible and confuses the issue though.

>>8467044
except he is going to gut the EPA

>>8467204
Topkek

>>8468634
climate change denying anti-nuke environmentalist

Were the Left and the Right not stupid enough for you? Did you really have to pick the worst elements of both?

look at this man america
look at him and despair

File: CehVXFjWEAAdnON.jpg (35KB, 586x296px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 586x296px

>>8467185
>Not posting the original

I came to /sci/ to learn about climate change and this was the first thread in the catalog. What are the chances?

Okay /sci/, I know basically nothing about climate change, can you explain to me how CO2 emissions are causing simultaneous
>drought
>flood
and why an increase of 2 degrees globally is something that scientists are terrified of?

Like, so I've heard higher temperatures will make more water evaporate, so we will have drier land, but then won't it also evaporate the water in the ocean so the sea level doesn't rise? And how will local temperatures shoot up if we have all this new cloud cover from all the water that stays up in the air?

I get that 2 degrees average is distributed over a huge area so that's probably more crazy than it sounds, but where would be the "best" place to be? Am I going to notice climate change the least at the poles or the equator, is what I'm asking. I get that somewhere has to be dragging this average down so that 2 degrees doesn't seem so bad, and I'm guessing just based on landmass it must be the equator, right? So the temperature there might not change at all, and averaged with a massive change at the comparatively smaller poles it would average out to a small number. Is that right or is this folk pseudoscience bullshit?

>>8467105
>Yet another moron who doesnt realise that global warming causes extremes of temperature, not just generally warmer weather all the time

To his credit first it was "global warming", then "global cooling", then finally they just started calling it "climate change".

If they would have made up their fucking minds the first time around maybe there wouldn't be such skepticism surrounding the entire industry.

>>8469591
It has always been global warming, "global cooling" was never a serious theory and "climate change" as it's used today is synonymous with "global warming".

>>8467988
> You guys need to organise now and retake the congress in 2018
The third of the senate that is up for reelection in 2018 is very favorable to the republicans, so that's not happening.

Aside from that, the senate by its very nature favors the republicans, since there are more red states than blue states and every state gets equal representation in the senate regardless of population. The house of representatives normally would be easier to flip because it's by population and all reelected at once, but currently the way that the lines are drawn means that republicans simply cannot lose in the house regardless of how the vote turns out. Even though more people vote for democrats than republicans, republicans have a very solid majority in the house and will retain that at least until the 2020 census when the lines are redrawn (though their control of almost all the state governments means that even then those lines will likely favor the republicans).

Additionally, in January the republicans will have total control of all branches of the federal government, and most of the states. The US is essentially a one-party state now. That will make it easy for them to pass voting laws that will prevent those who might vote against them from voting, cementing their victory for the next several decades.

>>8469542
http://www.ipcc.ch/

>>8469542
> but then won't it also evaporate the water in the ocean so the sea level doesn't rise

Evaporated water will eventually fall as rain and flow in rivers back into the oceans. Accelerating the process isn't going to change the amount of water going through the cycle. What will change it is melting a ton of glaciers that have normally been sitting on the sidelines for thousands of years. That will dump a bunch more water into circulation.

Also, the increased evaporation will result in an intensification of existing patterns. Namely, places that have little water will have even less, whereas places that get a lot of water will get even more. Both are bad. Having too little water is a draught, which sucks, and having too much all at once is a flood, which also sucks.

>>8469630
> ipcc
Got anything other than propaganda for fooling easily-conned normies?

>>8469627
>by its very nature
I hate to interject but I don't think this is the verbal flourish you were looking for. The Senate has been Democrat-controlled 34 times in the last century.

The senate CURRENTLY favors the Republicans because there are CURRENTLY more red states, but there is nothing about the nature of the senate that makes it necessarily linked to Republicanism. In fact, Republicanism didn't exist at the time of the creation of the Senate.

You might make a more convincing argument that the Senate tends to favor Antifederalists, one of the political movements present at the time of the creation of the constitution. The Antifederalists feared that power would be concentrated among high population cities in a few states and they would dictate policy for the rest of the country. The senate, where every state gets an equal say, was supposed to be a conceit to this political group.

In other words, any organization which favors States' Rights will have the advantage in the Senate. At the time of the Civil War, that was actually the Democrats! Nowadays, that's the Republicans. The nature of the Senate didn't change, the nature of the parties changed.

>>8469672
Yes, if you want to look at it from a historical perspective then it would be more accurate to say that by its nature the senate favors whichever side appeals more to smaller but more numerous states. Right now though, that means the republicans. Yes, I know they weren't always the party of the smaller states, but they are now and they are likely to stay that way for at least another decade or two, which means they'll have a built in advantage in the senate for that decade or two.

Right now, the nature of the senate gives the republicans a distinct edge when it comes to controlling it.

>>8469645
If you think modern science is propaganda, then there's nothing anyone is going to post on /sci/ that could help you.

File: earth-water-distribution-bar.png (20KB, 534x491px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 534x491px

>>8469542
> Okay /sci/, I know basically nothing about climate change, can you explain to me how CO2 emissions are causing simultaneous
> drought
> flood

As you mentioned, higher heat means more evaporation. Areas that don't get a lot of rainfall will feel the impact of the increase in evaporation but won't see much more rain fall (because the water often moves somewhere else once it's in the air), leading to drought.

However, that water still has to go somewhere. It doesn't just hang around in a cloud forever (residency time in air is about 9 days), it's eventually going to come back down. While it's in the air, it will move and generally fall in a semi-predictable place (mountains tend to force the water up, where it cools and falls as rain, a low pressure area also leads to rain, etc.) Now, because there is a lot more evaporation, water gets into the air in larger amounts, and most of that extra water is going to get dumped on the same areas that it normally would have fallen on. So areas that normally see plenty of rain will instead be drenched in an immense amount of rain, which causes flooding.

As for sea level rise, evaporation in the end doesn't really change that by as much as you might think, since that evaporated water is just going to fall as rain and flow back to the ocean via rivers. Increased evaporation increases the amount that is regularly moving through the cycle, but it's a tiny amount compared to the ocean (pic related, atmospheric water is a tiny sliver compared to ocean water).

What will drive sea level rise is the fact that there are a bunch of glaciers sitting on dry land (Greenland, Antarctica, etc.). When those melt, a lot of water that wasn't "in circulation" for thousands of years will suddenly be added to the cycle. And as shown in the image, glaciers/icecaps contain a lot more water than the atmosphere. That will increase the amount of water in the ocean, which will raise sea levels.

>>8467066
Are you dull? His leading Sec. of Energy is a climate-change denialist. He also wants more coal jobs and doesn't want to invest in renewable energies.

>>8469706
You could post something that isn't tainted by a blatant conflict of interest.

>>8469763
> climate-change denialist
No one denies that climate changes. That's a liberal lie. The question is if humans are causing it, which is debatable, and if it's actually something to worry about, which it clearly isn't. Alarmists want to spin it as something catastrophic that we must take action on, but the reality is that it's out of our control and we have far bigger problems to tackle. Providing energy to everyone on the planet is far more important than any environmentalist fantasy.

> doesn't want to invest in renewable energies.
"Renewable energies" are a pipe dream. If environmentalists were actually serious they would support nuclear energy, but they don't. Trump does.

>>8469772
>The question is if humans are causing it, which is debatable, and if it's actually something to worry about, which it clearly isn't.
Wrong
>and if it's actually something to worry about, which it clearly isn't.
Wrong
>Providing energy to everyone on the planet is far more important than any environmentalist fantasy.
This is actually more easily done with renewables than fossil fuels. Nuclear would be better for the immediate future.

>>8469772
>You could post something that isn't tainted by a blatant conflict of interest.
No I couldn't, because you've already assumed anyone with even half a clue is part of a global conspiracy.

>No one denies that climate changes. That's a liberal lie.
A "liberal lie"? Are you fucking serious?

>The question is if humans are causing it,
Almost all studies put human attribution between 80% and 120% of observed warming.

>which is debatable,
It's debatable in the same way that evolution is - there's a debate, but it's between scientists and the people willing to ignore science.

>and if it's actually something to worry about, which it clearly isn't.
I suppose you think all the authors of the impact studies are "in on it" too?

>Alarmists want to spin it as something catastrophic that we must take action on
That's not spin. Anything which is going to produce a long-term reduction in crop production is going to kill a lot of people.

>but the reality is that it's out of our control
No it's not. We're still causing it after all.

>"Renewable energies" are a pipe dream.
They're a pipe dream that's nearly closed the gap will coal plants in kWh/$. That's a pretty impressive pip dream.

>If environmentalists were actually serious they would support nuclear energy
Many of them do. They're not grown in pods.
Also, nuclear is outrageously expensive, and there's not really any signs it's getting significantly cheaper soon.

>Trump does.
Fuck off.

>>8467204
lol the "a little bit of air IV'd will kill you" meme.
Try 50 ml of air to fill the left ventricle before you die.

>>8469830
>>8469798

>buttblasted liberals without real arguments just muh feelings

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

>>8470088
Here's the undoctored science then bub:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf

Bet you don't understand 3/4 of it.

>>8467044
Is he doing this for votes or is he really retarded?

>>8470146
Those were all before he started to run. He is actually that retarded.

>>8470146
>>8470151
gotta love those SJWtard echochamber tears.

File: erin lel face.jpg (13KB, 306x295px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 306x295px

>>8470088
Trumps victory was worth it just to see the retarded neoliberals jump off of their roofs. I'm loving this endless butthurt.

>>8470157
kek this fag gets destroyed by >>8469830
and doesnt even respond to the study(proof) he posted.
This is the problem, people who literally have 0 understanding of anything to do with science actually get a say in whats real and what isn't, all hes said is "causation != correlation" and posted a graph that proves the one small point, but what he doesn't realize is we all learned that shit in like 7th grade and know that its taken into consideration when studies like these are published.

>>8470169
t. /x/tard shitposter with zero evidence.

Thanks for playing. Now you have to go back >>>/x/

>scientific consens since the late 70s/early 80s
>burgers still in denial, because it could hurt economy
i am almost butthurt about it. But the 1000 facets if stupidity that rules the burgerland is always good for amusements.
Go on, someone you dont like (liberal/conservative) said that the oil reserves are not infinite! what a total sjw

>>8470177
Change the system to make sure the people won't have to pay carbon tax extortion charge to the government and I assure you more than half of the deniers including me will change their minds.

>>8470173
>zero evidence
you mean the evidence you didnt respond to?
or this?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>>8470157
Be a man and call a spade a spade!

>>8470177
>peak oil is real
Lol Americans....

>>8470184

You do realize that's a really sad thing to say, especially for someone posting on a /sci/ board.

>>8469772
>No one denies that climate changes.
I come from a rural area and a huge percentage of people here claim that climate change is a liberal hoax. It took me years to convince my parents that it's real.

>>8470184
>Promise that I won't have to do anything about it and then I'll believe it's a problem.
Deniers.

>>8467185
>the president is in charge of every medical decision

I thought this was /sci/, not /pol/

>>8470188
> .gov
The people who stand to gain from everyone panicking about climate change and letting the government raise taxes and regulate CO2 (which means the government can regulate breathing) say that climate change is real? What a shock.

That's not evidence of anything other than how gullible you are.

lmao. another global warming thread, epic
>LOL ITS A HOAX
>(starves to death in 2050)
your delusions dont change reality ;) i plan on stockpiling cans of food on my lawn and shooting you and your families brains out when you try to take them. even though i'll run out and die too eventually i'll have fun putting you out of your misery

>>8469763
>His leading Sec. of Energy is a climate-change denialist.
In a sense this is exactly what we need right now. Because our only real options are (A) Nuclear (B) Neuter our species and return to agrarian stone age civilization (C) Be an even worse denialist and destroy both the environment and the economy with any of the green meme technologies that will probably never be efficient.

And explaining (C) to idiots was taking forever.

>He also wants more coal jobs
Excellent.
> and doesn't want to invest in renewable energies.
Good. No more free money for Musk. No more wasted free rides for dead end technologies and buzz worded research proposals. You'll have to earn your grants from actual smart people from now on, and private was always more money anyway.

>>8470088
See

>And explaining (C) to idiots was taking forever.

This is why it's better to have someone who doesn't ask questions than someone who is confident in their misunderstandings of science and engineering, non-/shitty second rate- engineers will never understand it. They just can't see the full picture. The true pipelines can only be seen by those trained in the art.

Does he even realize that opoosing global warming could very well topple numerous developing countries around the world?
Quota trading is very serious thing and helps development tremendously by providing source of income without the related increase in emissions. Irresponsibly endangering it is just asking for world trouble.

>>8471433
And why should the President of the United States care about the wellbeing of nations other than the United States? That's not his job. His job is to look out for America, no one else.

>>8471455
To be purely selfish, because if he doesn't the condition in those countries will deteriorate to the point where a lot of their citizens try to reach the US

>>8471464
So we build a wall to keep them out. And if they somehow get in, we deport them.

Being able to come to the US isn't a right, we don't have to let them in if we don't want them.

>>8471491
The world is a global economy now. Some third world country may only be worth 0.1% of our GDP, but it still hurts us. Plus climate change will in fact affect us directly too, and hurt us economically. And then there's fossil fuel depletion. It's simply a good economic decision to look to alternative energy for the long-term.

>>8469542
>>8467044
Long story short:
There's an unprecedented growth in CO2 and in temperature as well. It's not described by any natural cycle, because it's too fast and strong. The same data is measured by all scientists around the world.

Precise data on climate many years ago is extracted from trees, ice and rocks. So, even if we don't believe models (which CAN be wrong and it IS hard to predict biosphere) we do see something unprecedented. It's unsafe because the Earth is metastable. If you have water and ice in a cup, ice has temperature 0, you raise it by 1/1000000 degree and there's no more ice in your cup, only a water. Biosphere has a very limited capacity to adapt, and given rates it can go a very pessimistic scenario.

Now you know Goldman Sachs' guys, right? Yes, these are now citing it all and saying "yeah now let's enjoy our climate quotas!". Not reduce coal mining (sic!), not plant forests, no. Quotas. Money. Same goes for hundreds of little economically infeasible "clean" projects.

Have you ever tried to fight drug consumption without restricting production and storage? Never. And yet in climate it's precisely how they "fight".

The deal is pretty dead. I don't know how can anything be done in current system. So you better adapt yourself while you can.

>>8471546
> The world is a global economy now. Some third world country may only be worth 0.1% of our GDP, but it still hurts us
Another country collapsing means less competition, so it benefits the US.

> It's simply a good economic decision to look to alternative energy for the long-term.
"Alternative energy" is just a code phrase for rent seeking. It's just a way for liberals to fill the pockets of their supporters with taxpayer dollars. If they were actually serious about replacing fossil fuels, they would support nuclear power. The fact that we're even talking about wind or solar is more than enough evidence to show that this was never about energy, it's always been about using the government to enrich their friends.

>>8471560
A lot of us do support nuclear. Nuclear is still not a great long-term solution, but I am all for it as an interim solution.

>>8469763
>He also wants more coal job
fucking sweet

>>8467222
so embolisms are a hoax then?

>>8472505
Yes. A hoax perpetuated by the Chinese, to cripple our chances of CLEAN AIR.

>>8471565
Then you should support Trump, because he favors more nuclear power.

>>8470188
Any source you post will be dismissed by him as propaganda or lies by "them". There are no un-biased sources for these people.
NASA? Liberal screaming to increase their funding
MIT/Harvard/similar? All reasearch payed for by scary green people in suits to push an agenda
Every single fucking climate scientist in the world? Its a world-spanning conspiracy to cash in on the gravy train.

Its no use even trying, dude. He will never stop dismissing sources.

>>8471428
Still pisses me of how hippies and liberals have pretty much fucked over nuclear tech for the last 30 years.

>>8473007
He really doesn't give a shit. I never heard his support of nuclear but have heard his love for oil.

>>8471560
Kiribati or Tuvalu being two feet underwater isn't going to result in much less competition for the US but it is going to leave a lot of people without anywhere to live.


>build a wall
What's inscribed on the Statue of Liberty again?

>>8473193
>What's inscribed on the Statue of Liberty again?
"Fuck you, I've got mine!"

>>8473193
Made in France?

>>8473193
> muh Statue of Liberty!
Refers to legal immigrants, not hordes of illegal invaders.

>>8473243
>hordes
>invaders
Nice rhetoric, who knew it was so easy to control people just buy simple word choice. Goebbels would be proud.

>>8473247
> Wanting to enforce the law makes you a Nazi!
America is sick of the left's rhetoric. We see through it, and no matter how many times you insist that anyone who opposes you is a nazi, or a bigot, or a racist, or whatever, the American people are through with you garbage dogma.

>>8473259
I agree with you - that post is shitty.

I do think calling them illegal invaders is a bit disingenuous though. We're all immigrants in this country (unless your name is Crazy Horse?)

>>8473278
> We're all immigrants in this country
LEGAL immigrants are fine. The problem has always been with ILLEGAL immigrants.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3710152/forget-mars-trump-wants-nasa-to-visit-jupiters-moon-europa-and-explore-the-solar-system/

>>8473281
Well yeah this isn't the 17th century anymore either, world is full and borders need to be locked down. I don't really have much faith in any people that flee their homeland as opposed to trying to fix it anyway. I don't think horde or invaders are too harsh to describe what is going on today.

>>8473339
Literally everyone in the Americas except for the natives are there because they decided to leave their homeland rather than stay and fix it.

>>8473243
>>8473259
>>8473281
>breaking the law is bad
How much of a cuck can you be?

>>8473342
except slaves bruh

I'm honestly scared. What if Donald chooses someone like James Inhofe to chair his environmental committee? If you don't know who that is, it's the guy who brought a snowball into congress as "proof" climate change wasn't occurring. He is also the same guy who was the chair of the senate environment committee back in 2003-2007. He's made the committee read that Crighton novel about climate denial as proof it wasn't occurring then as well.

Oh yeah, and he's back on the environment committee again, and he believes man cannot change the Earth's climate because "muh only god can."

I guarantee Trump will select some retard with similar beliefs. The only way I can ever respect Donald is if he changes his view on climate change, actually listens to some informed advisers who know the science, not some ill-informed, paid shill denialists.

>>8473342
You may want to read some history/biology books on how the "natives" ended up there in the first place. Everything not living in the primordial ooze is an invader who ditched their habitat once shit got too real.

File: based.jpg (132KB, 861x787px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 861x787px

>>8473342
Yeah that's a good point but like I said world is getting really full. Except for the nomadic tribal natives it was wide open and fresh country, there was also exploration going on. At this point there is nowhere left to run, you stay and fix the joint. I don't think a global melting pot is avoidable though especially with first world immigration policies mostly rationalized by a bizarre economic perpetual growth structure.

Like it's great western agricultural practices can grow so many people in the third world now, along with modern medicine but time to also educate and supply some birth control.

>>8473487
>Enoch Powell
>a fucking Brit who thinks his country's prosperity didn't come at the expense of less developed countries
Top kek

>>8473608
> implying that means the brits owe the world anything
If any of those third world shitholes had somehow been able to, they would have raped the world too. Brits just did it to them first. That's just the way the world is, and the idea that it somehow means that the winners should help the losers is nothing but white guilt nonsense.

>>8473615
Study game theory, in particular the prisoner's dilemma.

>>8473620
The world isn't the prisoners dilemma. If you kill the other guy and take his stuff, then you have his stuff and suffer no consequences because the other guy is dead. There isn't an overarching authority in foreign policy like there is in the prisoner's dilemma. Certainly not one with any teeth.

In the prisoner's dilemma, you're stuck dealing with consequences forced on you by the law, where your only option is to either talk or not. In the real world, you can fuck over the other guy and there isn't anyone there to make that a bad choice.

>>8473615
>If any of those third world shitholes had somehow been able to, they would have raped the world too. Brits just did it to them first.
How is that any kind of justification?

>>8473670
Winning is the only justification that matters.

>>8473680
Yeah, okay, you can go back to /pol/ now.

>>8473633
>If you kill the other guy and take his stuff
For most countries in modern days, the cost of doing that is prohibitively high which works the same way as imposed consequence.

Except for USA, which can and have been using it as alternative solution in many cases.

>>8473725
The only reason that is is because the media acts like cleansing a country is some horrifying crime rather than just what they would have gladly done to us given the chance. Things like Iraq wouldn't have been a problem if the US could simply kill off the indigenous population. Instead the bleeding hearts demanded that the US treat the Iraqis with kid gloves, while the Iraqis rounded up children to use as suicide bombers and attacked the US with impunity.

If it weren't for the media, war would only be as expensive as a bullet per person in the country you invade.

>>8473739
Not really. You cant invade anything but the poorest countries without taking serious damage yourself. And even with Iraq, only US and a handful of countries can actually do that even not counting the "humanitarian aid"

If you do that, soon you will be left with countries that are too costly to invade. You cant
invade China or India without taking in a couple of nukes.

War is costly and just not as profitable as before.

>>8473739
Iraq would never have been a problem in the first place if the us hadn't decided to go back. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis...

>>8470096

one day later and >>8470088 still haven't replied.

dat damage control

>>8469534
>141 characters
Nice try m8

File: Mad_cat.jpg (242KB, 2048x1896px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 2048x1896px

>>8473440
Agreed

>>8470161
>neoliberals

Neoliberalism means advocating free-market policies, especially internationally. It does not mean the same thing as liberalism, or sjw, or whatever you clearly think it means.

>>8469542
>drought
>water evaporates, goes into the sky, gets rained down as rain
>flood
>too much water comes out of the sky/glaciers/ocean/whatever, and people drown
I'm not seeing what you're confused about here

>>8473440
>muh religious people are wrong meme
If humans can change the climate, then why do still let it snow?

>>8474154
Damn it anon. you got me

>>8469830
>It's debatable in the same way that evolution is - there's a debate, but it's between scientists and the people willing to ignore science
this is a perfect personification of this argument, liberals make a theory with some backing evidence and hail it as "generally accepted" in the name of science, and use that sentiment to dismiss anyone who dares to doubt its validity
by all means let's do the science and observe the patterns but don't put a yardstick on the ground and then claim you've used science to prove that the earth is flat

>>8474194
>by all means let's do the science and observe the patterns
Except, that part is already done.
You don't get to look at the conclusions of many years of peer-reviewed science and then say
>Maybe it's true, now let's do the science
We've already passed that point. That's exactly what has already been done.

>>8474206
I'm not saying it's not done I'm saying it's not conclusive yet

>>8467044
>clean air
sure, let's start by cutting down on harmful emissions that make the air toxic to breathe.
while we're at it, let's also try and stop intensely acidic rain and groundwater by limiting the amount of carbon that we shit out into the atmosphere.

>>8467044
>Burn coal because ACC is a Chinese hoax
>Clouds of nitrogen and sulfur oxides start to form in the atmosphere
>Acid rain fucks up forests and smog starts to invade cities

Even if you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change trying to not be American Beijin is sufficient reason why trying to reduce combustible fossils to the minimun might be actually a good idea.

File: discourse.jpg (84KB, 627x456px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 627x456px

>>8467066
>at least he seems to actually be in touch with industry and real STEM professionals
Trump thinks that the energy industry is suffering due to overregulation, when it's actually because of overproduction. his solution to their current woes is to drill more...which would just make the overproduction problem worse.
he also wants to boost coal production and promote fracking, apparently ignorant of the fact that coal is on the decline precisely because of the natural gas boom caused by fracking.
he has literally no idea what he's talking about w/ regard to energy policy.
t. actual geoscientist

>>8468012
>cuck
you have to go back >>>/pol/

>>8468016
>you're reacting to the political weather of the day, instead of the climate
temporally brief storm events can still be catastrophic to systems. a hurricane is weather, and so is a tornado.

>>8469478
holy shit, that guy is pathetic

File: paine_t.jpg (114KB, 261x406px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 261x406px

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
- Thomas Paine

>>8467998
>and not just high entropy memeshit with pretty green frontend in a stock photo.
This a great line.

>>8467389
That's what i thought cuz the ice is melting in the ocean

>>8467389
This, once the Artic melts and fucks the thermohaline current we can say hello to another Ice Age. This time for real.

Trump is right. Climate science is either a hoax or a farce of a field of study on par with economics or sociology. It's full of idiots who are too dumb for mathematics or physics.

File: 12743951_10208996847506823_8996927441977787568_n.jpg (31KB, 720x774px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 720x774px

>>8474783
>climate scientists
>too dumb for mathematics and physics
>field is literally nothing but mathematics and physics

>>8474194
>Science isn't science when I don't agree with it, it's just liberal opinions.
No.

>>8471560
>Another country collapsing means less competition, so it benefits the US.
>Zero-sum retardation

Hey, genius, if everyone else fucking collapses, who's going to buy US exports?

>>8473243
>Refers to legal immigrants
>In a time when the process for legal immigration was showing up at the US border (without a Passport, because they didn't fucking exist) saying you wanted in and taking a 10 minute medical exam.
>Naturalisation was literally sending in a form saying "Yes, I've been in America at this residence for a while. I love this country very much. Gib Citizenship pls."
>Currently you can only immigrate legally if you have family, manage to land a job that requires literal mountains of paperwork for an employer to deal with and whose yearly green card allotments run out in literal days, or have a literal million dollars to dump into a dead-end investment that will basically never see returns.
>If you are lucky enough to get one, the wait time for naturalisation can be anywhere from 10-30 years, on top of however long it took to get a Green Card
>Surprised when people illegally immigrate.
>Consistently flock to the first asshole who rants about illegal immigrants, but just wants to add even more nativist immigration policies that cut off what few remaining avenues exist for legal immigrants and further incentivises illegal immigration and stupid bullshit like E-Verify that just incentivises Juan and Pablo to engage in identity theft.

I swear to fucking christ, the vociferousness of nativists is universally inversely proportional to their understanding of US Immigration law.

>>8475918
>In a time when the process for legal immigration was showing up at the US border (without a Passport, because they didn't fucking exist) saying you wanted in and taking a 10 minute medical exam.

And at the time, there wasn't shit like welfare. If you wanted to survive in the U.S. you had to work your ass off to prove you derserve to live here. There was no safety net subsidized by legal citizens, no food stamps or any of that shit and more importantly, there was an abundance of jobs. Labor wasn't being exported overseas.

I don't know what country you're from but you're an asshole because I'm sure your country has a tough immigration process too but for some reason, everyone expects the best country in the world to let anyone in.

>>8474194

>hurr libruhls

Introspection would do you well.

>>8475968
Legal immigrants can't take welfare in the US, and illegals pay more in taxes than they receive in illegal benefits. Why do you think the IRS wants them to keep paying taxes even if it means identity theft to actually be able to file the paperwork?
There's still an abundance of jobs, just no one wants to go to school to weld or move to North Dakota to work at Wal-Mart for $20/hr.

Source for illegals paying in more than they take out:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584

Also, Bongistani, that country that literally hands out citizenship to anyone who happened to be born on some patch of dirt we blew up 150 years ago, so fuck you too pal. The best country in the world is supposed to lead by example and not stoop to everyone else's retardation you degenerate shit.

>>8476044
> Legal immigrants can't take welfare in the US
> illegals pay more in taxes than they receive in illegal benefits

The fact that shitlibs actually believe these things is both hilarious and sad.

>>8476052
Cite some fucking sources then nigger.

>>8476087
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer

>>8476088
>heritage.org

Why are you surrendering already

>>8476087
Mate, they even get assigned ID's in sanctuary cities. I've seen people who can't speak English for shit use food stamps with my own eyes. Places like NYC welcome illegals with open arms. I knew one personally who worked as a prostitute.

>>8476088
>heritage foundation
fucken lol, you actually manged to choose sources even less legit than that retard who says cigarettes don't cause cancer.

>>8476090
>>8476096
> shitlibs cite no sources to back up their claims
> get butthurt when someone cites a source that proves something they don't like
Delicious.

>>8476102
Heritage Foundation is no academic source. Their research is not only not peer reviewed but they're well known for cherry picking data, p-hacking, and jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

Just in skimming this paper there are a lot of obvious problems. For one depending on the statistic they may sometimes include in the calculations the legal immigrants and citizens living in the same household and sometimes not (eg. not included when assessing the income of the household but included when assessing the benefits received). It also looks like their method for calculating benefits is by just assigning the amount of benefits a household of US citizens at that income level would be using.

Like the other anon said, you can't apply for welfare as an illegal because you've got to fill out paperwork and provide some basic proof of identification and unlike applying for a job you can't just use a shitty fake ID. For the most part people get help from their churches which shouldn't be tax exempt IMO (Trump would disagree).

With regards to paying taxes you can find lots of research on this.
http://www.itep.org/pdf/immigration2016.pdf
>Collectively, undocumented immigrants in the United States pay an estimated total of $11.64 billion in
state and local taxes a year (see Table 1 for state-by-state estimates). This includes more than $6.9 billion in
sales and excise taxes, $3.6 billion in property taxes, and just under $1.1 billion in personal income taxes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/13/irs-admits-it-encourages-illegals-to-steal-social-security-numbers-for-taxes/
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/276086-irs-mulling-how-to-address-illegal-immigrants-using-others-identities

The IRS

>>8476113
Failed at greentexting
>Collectively, undocumented immigrants in the United States pay an estimated total of $11.64 billion in state and local taxes a year (see Table 1 for state-by-state estimates). This includes more than $6.9 billion in sales and excise taxes, $3.6 billion in property taxes, and just under $1.1 billion in personal income taxes.

>>8476102
>>8476113

Inb4 the change of subject

>>8476115
They cost tax payers $9 billion each year in New York alone.

>>8476113
>http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-immigrants-cost-us-100-billion-year-group/story?id=10699317

They cost citizens $100 billion a year.

File: ck noob.jpg (50KB, 550x317px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 550x317px

>>8476120

I lived in the US illegally (overstay) for 20 years. Here are some common misconceptions.
>Permanent residency (greencard) and citizenship are different things. Permanent resident is a pre-requisite for citizenship and is very difficult to obtain. Once you have permanent residence you only need to live in the US for a certain number of years and then take a citizenship test to earn your citizenship. However to get permanent residency in the first place is typically much more difficult, takes a lot longer, and costs more money. However there are many different processes (marrying a citizen is probably the fastest and most painless way to obtain permanent residency). I only mention this because I hear a lot of people confused about why immigrants don't just take the relatively easy citizenship test.
>"Illegal immigrant" is an informal umbrella term. It includes people who crossed the border as well as people who entered the country legally as tourists but overstayed on their visa (went out of status). A large proportion (somewhere around half) of the "illegal immigrants" entered the country legally. Overstays are not affected by the wall and they're in a much better legal situation than those who entered illegally. In general crossing the border illegally is viewed as an extremely dangerous expensive scam perpetuated by coyotes against people who don't know there are better alternatives. Many illegals in the US would like the see coyotes stopped.
>Working a job where you get paid under the table happens but not as commonly. It's risky for employers and it's risky for you. Instead what most people do is they share social security numbers and get fake IDs/social security cards. Then they pose as a regular ass citizen and apply for a normal ass job. This means your employer thinks you're a normal citizen and you pay taxes like a normal person.

(cont.)

File: ck noob 2.jpg (123KB, 1125x583px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1125x583px

>>8476285
Anchor babies aren't really a thing though to explain why I have to address different definitions/claims for anchor baby that people give.
>One claim is that an anchor baby will get the family legal status -- however, in order for an 'anchor baby' to sponsor a family member for permanent residency, said anchor baby must be over the age of 21. Then on top of that there's extra eligibility criteria and processing times (for parents it's under a couple years but for siblings it can take over a decade). In the 22 years you wait for your anchor baby to get you permanent residency you could have probably acquired citizenship by other means.
>Another claim is that having an anchor baby means that no one will want to deport you -- this one is more complicated. Essentially what happens is that ICE will hold the parents at a detention center for years while they await their trial, because of this most people just take the plea deal instead (allegedly the process is purposely slow for this purpose). I have never heard of anyone with young children waiting out the time in order to go to trial so at least to my knowledge it isn't true in any practical sense and may not necessarily be true in any other sense either. I'll elaborate on this in the next post.

(cont.)

File: ck noob 3.jpg (75KB, 1000x673px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1000x673px

>>8476291

This is a personal experience of mine related to that second argument in the last post. Swift & Co (chain of meat packing plants) were raided nationwide for knowingly hiring people with crooked papers (allegedly it wasn't uncommon for them to have several people working there under the same name and social security number at the same time). When this happened ICE surrounded each plant and arrested everyone inside without legal status. Once the operation was finished they transported the people out, called the operation a big success, and left. Unfortunately they didn't bother to follow up with these people or the community and failed to realize that many young children (mostly American citizens) went home to empty houses without any idea wtf was going on because both of their parents were being detained. At the time I was volunteering with a community group and over a span of about a month we managed to track down over a hundred kids (and their parents in Mexico) who had been living with neighbors, teachers, and if lucky a family member. Our group then raised money in order to pay for plane tickets in order to send these kids to their parents in Mexico we also threw a small Christmas party for them with donated toys as gifts. Not one parent that I was aware of decided to wait it out in ICE's detention facilities. Not one person was stopped from being deported because of their American 'anchor baby". Worse still, almost every American child we tracked down ended up being effectively deported because their parents were. This isn't the only instance I've seen with this sort of thing but it is the most striking. At any rate, it is a personal experience and you likely won't find anything about it on the news (besides how successful the raids were). At least I hope it serves to explain that while I think what ICE did was irresponsible, I do not think it was illegal, and it is this nuance that allows the notion of an anchor baby to be spun so much by the media.

>>8476285
>>8476291
>>8476295
Are you legal now?

File: ck noob 4.jpg (99KB, 650x440px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 650x440px

>>8476295
The Deam Act and DACA actually have some pretty sane reasoning.
>The basic premise for the dream act is is that since they grew up in the US most of them identify as American. Furthermore, the US has already invested in these kids through education and other means so by giving them a restricted path toward permanent residence (with limitations) the US is essentially cutting their losses (otherwise they would be deporting a bunch of US educated kids who identify as American). The Dream Act has all these extra rules that say stuff like -- a "Dreamer" who obtains permanent residency through the program will never be able to sponsor family members for permanent residency. I don't believe that the Dream Act will be passed any time soon, if ever.
>The basic premise for DACA is that it gives all of the "good" illegal immigrants a way for them to come out of the shadows. Note that DACA has some straightforward and reasonable eligibility criteria linked below. The people I know who are on DACA are people who got through university on private scholarships and have no criminal records. The people I know who were not eligible for DACA (and are therefore not on DACA) are people who either dropped out of high school or fucked up and got some shit on their record. Ironically, if Trump deports all of the DACA people then he's only deporting the "good" illegal immigrants and leaving all of the shitheads and gang bangers to take over influence in the communities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals#Eligibility

File: ck noob 5.jpg (82KB, 550x400px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 550x400px

>>8476300
Yes, but not in the US. I'm living in another country now and have been for the better part of a decade though I still think of the US as home. Due to my accrued unlawful presence in the US I had a 10 year ban (not to mention I was unlikely to be allowed back in any time soon).

Recently I was approved for a waiver on my ban on the basis of being accepted to a research conference down there. So I'll be visiting again soon, legally. I'm not sure what to expect right now given this crazy election.

File: Glass on Stove.webm (2MB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x540px

>>8476311
What in the holy hell are you on about?

>>8476337
Wut, why did the dish break? Pyrex should be able to handle 305° no problem.

>>8476363
Really?

>>8476337
I was just trying to be forthcoming in my answer, forgive me if I got carried away.

>>8476389
Really.

>>8476426
the burner under the glass is only 305C?

>>8476453
Could be, if it's just sustaining the temperature. Even if he is further heating the candy with the burner on high, it's still just a cooking burner, not some jet engine. Pyrex can take a stove on high.

>>8476285
>Overstays are not affected by the wall
The argument, "They'll just come back in." against kicking out overstays is affected by the wall.

File: IMG_0756.jpg (44KB, 256x197px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 256x197px

>>8468012
>you're just cucked by the liberal media

File: sitstay.jpg (75KB, 602x336px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 602x336px

>>8467988

File: 1451842485774.jpg (198KB, 886x642px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 886x642px

>>8476834

File: 1473464145933.jpg (93KB, 600x490px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 600x490px

>>8476834

>you

File: politilies.jpg (109KB, 761x701px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 761x701px

>>8476834

>

File: politifact 81 percent.png (206KB, 1588x440px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1588x440px

>>8476865
That is an edited image. For the first one, the number isn't correct. In fact, it's completely backwards.

Here's a screenshot of what they actually said.

>>8476865
>>8476856
>>8476854
>>8476852

>if a chewed up jpg says it, it must be true

Whoa nelly

>>8477113
> can't refute the argument, attack the source instead
Classic shitlib damage control.
Trump won because no one believes the MSM anymore. It's become clear to everyone that they're nothing but a propaganda outlet for the dims, and the people who have to deal with reality can see that what the MSM says is completely divorced from what is happening in the real world. People are turning to alternate sources because the MSM is so clearly worthless, and even a random infographic is a vast improvement on the mindless propaganda that the MSM is peddling.

File: Black on white crime.png (353KB, 637x474px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 637x474px

>>8477106
> totally wrong stats
Then they're not just nit-picking, they're flat out lying. The numbers are right.

>>8477135
>The mainstream media is nothing but propoganda
>that's why you should listen to me and my misleading Photoshopped images

>>8477135
>entire """argument""" is images
>can't refute the argument so you attack the sources

Ya got me

File: =^).gif (1MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x500px

>>8476044
BTFO

>>8476093
>I've seen people who can't speak English for shit use food stamps with my own eyes.
amazingly enough, some US citizens can't speak English for shit.
>Places like NYC welcome illegals with open arms
yes, because NYC has control over federal welfare programs

>>8477135
>someone didn't believe the unsourced pics I posted
>don't they know that if there's a picture it must be true!
>probably just liberal shills
did your parents have any children that lived?

>>8477148 see >>8477113
I know for a fact that white on white is way more common than black on white because people usually kill people that they live in close proximity to you dingus

This is a man who says he can't learn from books and just makes decisions based on his gut. We are fucked.

>>8470968
He seems to think he is an expert on everything and he has say in who is in charge of a lot of things.

>>8477533
> "I know for a fact"
> cites no source
> dismisses someone who does cite a source
What's wrong? Someone hurt your fee fees? Little baby going to cry?
I hope so, shitlib tears are delicious.

>>8476559
Many countries don't kick out overstays (unless they've been convicted of a crime and issued a deportation order) and that is because it's possible for an overstay to enter a process and regain a legal status in the country.

This idea that overstays aren't being deported out of fear of not being effective is silly, especially considering overstays don't like coyotes.

>>8477106
lol, even Bill O'Reilly told Trump that that statistic isn't even fucking close.

>>8477538
He's also said that he hasn't changed since the first grade.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/opinions/president-trump-six-year-old-with-nuclear-weapons-dantonio/
> "When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I'm basically the same. The temperament is not that different."

>>8477648
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fact-checking-donald-trump-questionable-statistics-tweet-article-1.2443285

>>8476093
I lived in a ghetto when I was a kid. The community was made up of illegal immigrants and destitute American citizens. Many of the citizens were on welfare and so it wasn't uncommon for anyone doing any sort of business in the community to end up with food stamps originating from the citizens. There even was a clandestine shop (not that the products were illegal but I don't think they had a business license) that operated out of a house that accepted food stamps.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is what you saw. That said, the situation in sanctuary cities is somewhat different. An immigrant is capable of getting a drivers license/state ID there but I'm not sure if that's sufficient identification to claim any sort of benefits. I know some things, like getting a US passport (or getting your first drivers license/state ID in most normal states) require one to present a birth certificate, I'd be interested to hear what the situation actually is from any illegal immigrants living in these cities (I know there are several on /sci/ as I've had conversations with them before).

>>8477106
>>8476865
It's actually %15 percent. How fucking crazy is it when Bill O'Reilly has to correct the record.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfxwPBmpsv4

File: DAMAGE CONTROL.jpg (79KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 650x650px

>>8477648
wow you seem pooper peeved

>>8477731
>reaction image reply
you're just proving his point

File: smug anime face.png (67KB, 215x295px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 215x295px

>>8477737
>implying there exists a "Crime Statistics Bureau"
>implying a pissy rant justifies a serious response

>>8477744
>smug anime face
I rest my case

File: 1457165912438.png (602KB, 1440x1312px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 1440x1312px

>>8477750

>>8467988
You want to fuck over the entire country so you can pass regulations that aren't even proven to help the climate change problem? Single issue people must be the biggest morons on the planet.

File: card_2_3.jpg (138KB, 630x354px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 630x354px

>>8467044

So he's going to keep the clean air/water acts. That's good.

File: Wrong window.jpg (134KB, 562x739px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 562x739px

>>8477750
>the internet is srs bsns
Why are /pol/esmokers so fucking cancerous?

>>8477648
>keeps referring to "sources" that have been discredited

Grow up or leave sci

>>8477827
Acts created by the EPA? Nope. He wants to dismantle the EPA.

>>8470161
>neoliberals
Wait, wut?

>>8477135
>XD you can't refute my photoshopped facebook-tier images

>>8477148
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

>>8467185
>tfw he believes this because his son Barron is autistic
>he is just trying to convince himself that it's not his own fault for having him at an old age

Poor guy.

>>8478929
Still better than the MSM.

>>8474005
I think he was saying because Trump is a retarded isolationist who doesn't understand basic economic principles like the principle of comparative advantage.

>>8478938
Source is right there in the image.

>>8479336
>It's one city

Wow, it's cherry-picked nothing

>>8477648
why are you even on /sci

File: Cash Money.jpg (69KB, 489x362px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 489x362px

>>8479336
>>8479339
protip: no such thing as "crime statistics bureau" in SF
this is why the >>>/pol/ esmokers must go back

>>8477135
>we don't believe in the retarded garbage the MSM puts out
>but we'll believe the even more retarded garbage other people put out because it's not MSM and it's what we want to believe

>>8479862
In the US, fake news is much more popular than real news. In the recent election, the most popular stories in circulation were ones that were false. And not even debatable things, really obviously false stuff like "Pope Francis endorses Donald Trump."

>>8480626
>>8479862
The issue is that some 30-40 million of those voters are uneducated and aren't interested in what is true
They are conditioned to behave that way

Those people will choose to believe whatever they want, no matter what they see in the news