Trump Enslavement Syndrome - Orange man good. /r/The_Donald and any public demonstration of rabid pro-Trump enthusiasm in spite of all reason.

But it won't on Voat. The downvote button is a terrible idea for so many reasons. It practically guarantees a community will be pigeonholed into one trail of thought, since it allows the users to silence anyone deviating from that trail. I had high hopes for Voat at first, but, well... Reddit's entire structure doomed the site into perpetual exceptionalism for eternity, and to the surprise of no one, the exact same thing happened when it was directly cloned.

Voat stole the shitty voting system from Reddit who kinda stole it from Slashdot, except they fucked it up.

On Slashdot back in the day it wasn't really uncommon to find people arguing against each other and they were both highly upvoted by community moderators as long as they were making good points and arguing in good faith.

On Reddit or Voat shit just gets buried instantly because downvote=disagree. An excellent way to build echo chambers, but not so much a place for debate.
 
You're free to go there and argue against that position if you want. That's the beauty of a free speech platform. Although you may have a hard time proving it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_businesspeople.
>Rich Jews exist, especially in lines of work where Jewish people were traditionally pigeonholed due to past associations of these jobs as being unclean (banking, acting, etc.)
>Therefore, the kikes control every government and put subliminal messages in Beach Boys albums to make us commit incest
Truly, a flawless line of reasoning.
 
>Rich Jews exist, especially in lines of work where Jewish people were traditionally pigeonholed due to past associations of these jobs as being unclean (banking, acting, etc.)
>Therefore, the kikes control every government and put subliminal messages in Beach Boys albums to make us commit incest
Truly, a flawless line of reasoning.
So you're saying it's the Jews that snuck into my computer and wrote that Brian/Dennis/Carl threesome fic and that it's not just a product of my diseased mind?

Those aren't good vibrations!
 
Hooray my threadban has expired!
I wasn't even aware of those cages in 2015, but if I had been, I'd have been just as against them then. I am not blindly biased towards the left, either (hell, two of my most frequent posted threads are the Antifa and reddit troon thread).

The predictions have been off a bit, but they were certainly right about the more extreme weather and sea level rising. There's zero reason to not work on cleaning up our carbon footprint. The worst that happens is that we have cleaner air. Oh no, that's just horrible.

My main political agenda is environment based. We live on earth. We need the earth. Why anyone wouldn't want to clean it up is beyond me.
Uhh... please produce a quote of correct predictions about sea level rise and extreme weather. Not "There will be sea level rise and there will be instances of extreme weather" because that's been true forever and isn't in question by anyone serious. But saying "By 2000 the world will be uninhabitable by human life" and then noting in 2019 the temperature is half a degree higher on average is not showing a successful prediction.

You seem to have a misunderstanding on carbon footprints and clean air. Air pollution IS a real problem worldwide, but it has nothing to do with carbon. CO2 emission is NOT air pollution. Dirty bad air kills lots and lots of people worldwide. CO2 emissions kill 0 people every year. CO2 emissions theoretically cause global warming under global warming theory.

So your last point, we all live on earth, you are right. It's too easy to let the politics jade you. But you're doing the same thing there. You're making a false equivalency, people who don't believe global warming theory don't want to have a clean earth. No, actually, we want to focus environmental efforts on actually CLEANING the earth, you know, of toxins and heavy metals and the bad shit factories pour into the ground, not pursuing some theory that's been consistently making wrong predictions since the 70s. Unfortunately there's very little overlap between real actual environmentalism and CO2 based bullshit.

I'll drop global warming if the left will, we can all just pretend everyone meant "Actual environmentalism" when they talked about carbon bullshit...

If your criteria for a president's platform being successful is "immediately enacted every single plank he promised unilaterally", you seem to believe all presidents are like the Glorious Supreme President For All Time of Africastan.

Oh my god... I agree with Senior Lexmechanic's post. Defending Trump's presidency? What the fuck is going on here?
 
Hooray my threadban has expired!

Uhh... please produce a quote of correct predictions about sea level rise and extreme weather. Not "There will be sea level rise and there will be instances of extreme weather" because that's been true forever and isn't in question by anyone serious. But saying "By 2000 the world will be uninhabitable by human life" and then noting in 2019 the temperature is half a degree higher on average is not showing a successful prediction.

You seem to have a misunderstanding on carbon footprints and clean air. Air pollution IS a real problem worldwide, but it has nothing to do with carbon. CO2 emission is NOT air pollution. Dirty bad air kills lots and lots of people worldwide. CO2 emissions kill 0 people every year. CO2 emissions theoretically cause global warming under global warming theory.

So your last point, we all live on earth, you are right. It's too easy to let the politics jade you. But you're doing the same thing there. You're making a false equivalency, people who don't believe global warming theory don't want to have a clean earth. No, actually, we want to focus environmental efforts on actually CLEANING the earth, you know, of toxins and heavy metals and the bad shit factories pour into the ground, not pursuing some theory that's been consistently making wrong predictions since the 70s. Unfortunately there's very little overlap between real actual environmentalism and CO2 based bullshit.

I'll drop global warming if the left will, we can all just pretend everyone meant "Actual environmentalism" when they talked about carbon bullshit...

If it weren't for the fact that 99% of climate scientists say that carbon is a big factor in it, you'd have a point, but when you are going against the overwhelming scientific consensus, you'd better have some valid data to back it up or you're just a tard
 
Oh my god... I agree with Senior Lexmechanic's post. Defending Trump's presidency? What the fuck is going on here?
Regardless of what you may think of me, I don't believe in criticizing people for things that aren't actually true/reasonable. Arguing a president is bad because he didn't immediately and perfectly enact his entire platform overnight with unilateral power is inane when people on the right do it to Obama, and it's inane when done to Trump. The most significant difference I would comment on is that the majority of the legislature fought Obama tooth and nail through most of his terms, while Trump has had difficulty passing legislation even when the legislature is stacked with members of his own party and he has swamp monsters in said party on his "side". "Trump seems to have a lot of trouble playing the political game, which is a serious drawback for a holder of high office" would be a fair criticism.
 
If it weren't for the fact that 99% of climate scientists say that carbon is a big factor in it, you'd have a point, but when you are going against the overwhelming scientific consensus, you'd better have some valid data to back it up or you're just a tard
Someone doesn't understand what a null hypothesis is or that voting isn't a step in the scientific method. How would you like me to prove global warming theory is wrong better than it's proponents have? When you make a prediction based on a theory, and it doesn't even come close, you just disproved your theory.

Also 99 percent now? Isn't the made up number you're looking for 97 percent?

But ok, have you noticed the fact that no countries were submerged by rising sea levels in 2000? The ipcc said by their most conservative estimates, it would happen by then. That prediction was made in 89.

Regardless of what you may think of me, I don't believe in criticizing people for things that aren't actually true/reasonable. Arguing a president is bad because he didn't immediately and perfectly enact his entire platform overnight with unilateral power is inane when people on the right do it to Obama, and it's inane when done to Trump. The most significant difference I would comment on is that the majority of the legislature fought Obama tooth and nail through most of his terms, while Trump has had difficulty passing legislation even when the legislature is stacked with members of his own party and he has swamp monsters in said party on his "side". "Trump seems to have a lot of trouble playing the political game, which is a serious drawback for a holder of high office" would be a fair criticism.
You did rate me autistic in the post where I agreed with you, so I guess we're on the same page.

Also Obama had a supermajority for his first 2 years, I wouldn't call that the legislature fighting tooth and nail...
 
You did rate me autistic in the post where I agreed with you, so I guess we're on the same page.

Also Obama had a supermajority for his first 2 years, I wouldn't call that the legislature fighting tooth and nail...
1. The rating is for your argument about anthropocentric climate change, which I won't bother dogpiling you on.
2. That's completely fair- in counterpoint, I would note that most of the major planks that Obama had in his initial campaign platform were passed in those two years.
 
832499

<Defending Alex Jones
<Defending the guy who thinks chemicals turn frogs gay and harassed the parents of murdered children

:story:

Also, they're all bitching at Clinton for his role in the Epstein scandal while conveniently ignoring the fact that Trump probably fucked underage girls too.
 
Última edición:
Ver archivo adjunto 832499
<Defending Alex Jones
<Defending the guy who thinks chemicals turn frogs gay and harassed the parents of murdered children

:story:

Also, they're all bitching at Clinton for his role in the Epstein scandal while conveniently ignoring the fact that Trump probably fucked underage girls too.

I'm sure he's totally innocent and just called Epstein a "terrific guy" and complimented his taste in women for completely and totally innocent reasons.
 
I'm sure he's totally innocent and just called Epstein a "terrific guy" and complimented his taste in women for completely and totally innocent reasons.

For anyone questioning this, Trump really did say this:

"I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Yeah, there's no excusing this.
 
I'm sure he's totally innocent and just called Epstein a "terrific guy" and complimented his taste in women for completely and totally innocent reasons.
I may be wrong, but for whatever reason, that's actually why I think he may not be implicated. Mostly I'm waiting for the evidence. If he is implicated, may justice be done though the heavens fall.
 
For anyone questioning this, Trump really did say this:



Yeah, there's no excusing this.
I'm sure he's totally innocent and just called Epstein a "terrific guy" and complimented his taste in women for completely and totally innocent reasons.
Hey faggots, sorry to interrupt the hentai-addled circlejerk maybe you should note that this was before he got convicted of being a pedophile 10 years ago. Maybe Trump misjudged the guy, ya know, since most pedophiles aren't exactly in the open with their pedophilia. I mean the only evidence you faggots have is that he took a plane (not the lolita express plane) as a stop off to go to his other plane and Epstein and his brother were the only ones on board and that Trump didn't stay in Mar alargo (not the kiddie fiddler island) he just used it as a stepping stone to take his plane somewhere else. He also banned him from there and helped get him prosecuted in 2009, but ya know whatever helps your narrative.

Whereas Bill Clinton went to the island 26 times on the Lolita Express and is pictured with one of the girls that Epstein was using as a Sex Slave.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo