Random Politics & Religion #18

I rather trust Trump than Clinton. Cause, remember, Clinton still lost.

To Trump.

Of all people, she lost to MFing Trump!

Instead of harping on it all the *** time, learn to get over with it, and go after the man for policies he makes. Kindof how us conservatives have been doing it for 8 years.

We got over Obama's election.....twice. We didn't hold protests over the results, nor did we create conspiracy theories about how Obama should have been impeached/held for treason. Trump was not elected from any of those things you mentioned, and continuing to think that he was or that any of it had any basis for his election will only help him get elected in 2020. So, instead of attacking his past, why not attack his present and also, most importantly, try to put up a candidate who's not worse than Trump next time, k?

Too late.

I trust Trump as much as I trust any other politician.

Either way, he literally is the lessor of two evils. And (not counting California, who is the entire reason why Clinton won the popular vote) so did most of America.

Oh please, don't even. I've been posting in these threads for around 5 years now, and I can't count the number of times from the Left that I've heard something along the lines of, "There are plenty of things wrong with Obama, they just aren't the things you guys are mentioning."

Well guess what? There are plenty of things wrong with Trump. Unlike with Obama where many (not all) of the arguments against him had some substance, we're dealing with a media deluge of literally made-up stories about him and his cabinet picks that nobody can back up with any real evidence beyond the circumstantial kind. So instead of looking at actual policies, we're stuck defending the pompous blowhard from sensationalist, false, clickbait drivel.

And in some cases, there isn't even any circumstantial evidence to support their reporting. It's outright libel, but it's ok because it's against Trump and/or his cabinet.

Ah but it does. Your not even American though neither are most of her supporters, yet here you go attempting to interfere with US politics by trying to convince and bias it's voters.

So tell us, which candidate did you vote for?

788 minutes fam.

That's like less than 5 of the 8 Harry Potter movies until this nightmare is over.

Look at all the red meat in here fam.


Keep those fingers crossed!

If I didn't like using 'fam' jokingly every once in awhile, I'd have Rooks filter it to something else.

Galka Pudding.

If that were true she would be President...

You were the one who argued about trusting Trump. It's almost to the point where you are trying to create a strawman against the previous argument (trusting the media).

California does not make America. California is part of America, but it is not America.

Yeah but 14-year-old Russian hackers tho.

Define "supporting". The popular vote is meaningless, so there is no way to prove your statement.

I'd like to see more about where they get that 10.5 trillion over ten years... the specific departments listed in your partial quote are pretty small...

God damn KN... we get it you hate California... take your own advice about getting over things and move on already...

Yea I'm sure Donald Trump has a direct line to the hacker community. He doesn't even own a computer that I'm aware of...or understand how computers work.

I support women by watching porn...I mean some of that revenue gets to them eventually !

McKeena was an advisor for Perry's 2016 campaign and not simply a Trump transition team flunky as some are attempting to label him in order to discredit him and the NYT.

Given Perry's past feelings on the DoE; it's not far fetched that a conversation about the functions of DoE occurred where misunderstandings were expressed. Since one of the roles of campaign advisers is to educate candidates on their misunderstandings.

But let's actually take a recent quote from Perry that actually validates McKeena and the NYT article that is being vilified as facts I don't like:

"My past statements made over five years ago about the Department of Energy do not reflect my current thinking. In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination."

Validation.

To put it in lay men's terms Perry basically said

"I had no idea what the DoE really did but then I found out and said holy ***Texas's economic success under my tenure is directly associated to its functions. I rather like it, and given my experience as governor of Texas I totally get what the appropriate role of regulation and industry are. Did I mention that under my tenure Texas became the nations leading state for wind energy? You guys know Texas's economy is based on the energy industry right? See I like energy!"

/snarks

Harping about how Clinton won the popular vote has zero meaning when the entire popular vote for a nation was won in one region in one state, in a nation where popular vote doesn't elect the leader of that nation.

I think Perry speaks for everyone when he says I have no idea what the DoE does. And I don't want to know !

Good thing I quoted Flavin, and not you, just so we can be clear as to who I was addressing.

Well, I'm glad we're judging these picks based on what is or what isn't far-fetched instead what's, you know, provable.

Who cares? Again, California should have a voice in who is elected, but they shouldn't be the voice.