i just wonder if the trump fans, who simply take his word for it about having sold all stock in the companies involved in building the pipelines revived by his executive orders, also don't have a problem with the fact that these companies directly donated massively to his campaign (as proven by FEC records).
how do they rationalise this? just pure coincidence, i guess? it's not about oil companies buying political favours, that's just jealous "evil businessman narrative", right? actually, it's more power to "the people" - i guess they will be excited then...

Who doesn't like donates? It would be exactly the same questiom if Clinton won with her band of morally questionable donators. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

i wonder if you would make the same fuss here with hillary, i guess not

what you are talking about here has never been different in america

Politicians can only be trusted to solve problems in the best interests of capitalism and not really solve them.

not related to my question at all but yes, i have no doubt that hillary LOVES the system as well, and i'm sure she would have happily traded political favours for money, you'd have to be blind to assume otherwise, just based on her record.
in regards to climate change, however, she at least did NOT deny it but rather acknowledged that it's a major concern. also, she at least PROMISED to continue obama's (already somewhat underwhelming) legacy in that regard and even improve the focus on renewable energy sources.
again, all that is of course pure speculation since she's not president. i will also happily "admit" that i generally would expect the worst she could somehow politically still justify from her. i do, however, find it unlikely that "it would have been exactly the same" concerning environmental protection, freezing EPA funding and pushing through these highly controversial pipelines, which this thread is about...



see above. if she had done the same thing about a problem that so clearly affects us all, i would have - not that you (or me for that matter) could prove any of that, or that it bears any relevance to begin with.
that being said, i DO think america missed a historic opportunity to at least TRY to get money out of politics (with sanders ofc, not with hillary). but trying to change the narrative to "it has always been like that, what's the big deal?" or "hillary would have done the same" when it's clearly not true (obama took at least small steps in the right direction and clinton at least promised to) are just cheap excuses to somehow defend trump's course...

This post was edited by fender on Jan 25 2017 09:40am

Anyone who denies man made climate change at this point is completely delusional. It's probably going to be the biggest issue for humanity in this century.

Agree with everything you've said. But I believe that instead of attacking trump for doing exactly what he said he would, we should be attacking the Americans that let this ridiculous system that allowed 2 *equally* dodgy people to float to the top of the political ladder.

In the end, the damage that trump does is down to those that voted him in. While it does indeed effect everyone, it has nothing to do with us.

Since this child keeps insisting on this by following my around in other threads and running his mouth, ill shoot him down again.
Even tho its a waste of time arguing with someone who has sworn off logic and is content to lie and fabricate stories repeatedly in lieu of valid arguments.

Someone declaring he owns the stock and claiming thats the reason for enacting a policy can definitely be lying when you have no evidence he has the stock and reports say he sold it.
you didnt say "we dont know if he lied and still has it, this could be the reason" you made a flat declaration without qualification and didnt even mention that reports say he sold it.

Its a fictitious claim not backed up by the evidence, (with an additional declaration of his motive that you also cant support,) evidence which was apparently willfully omitted for your convenience.
Do you understand that or what?

I didn't say take his word for it, and I explicitly said we don't know with 100% certainty.
Carrying on about how you dont like or trust trump is irrelevant to the point.


I don't have time to be your babysitter carefully watching over every thread for your posts.
You responded several hours after I posted and i didn't see the response.
You uncritically buying into the left's narrative doesn't remove the fact that some of the things you said were ALSO halftruths or lies.
Wow, Its more of a habit than I realized.
Stop lying and i wont call you out for lying. Pretty simple.


Again, you are falsely representing what I am saying and crying about it.
I made an argument against some of what the EPA does and you respond by strawmanning me.
Just stop.

If someone says something its not automatically an implication that you said the opposite.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jan 25 2017 11:39am

The consensus is already there within the international community. Obama was there to sign for the agreement. Maximum acceptable temperature rise world wide is 2 degrees celcius, which will be reached in a few years time if we keep the same lvls of CO2 in our atmosphere.

How do we stay below the 2 degrees? By reducing CO2 emmisions..
It's not rocket science. Any govenment that joined in on the agreement just needs to apply it.. The discussion is over !

Trump is about to delete all US data on global warming btw..

Be ready to be made stupid by your dictator.

it's going to weigh heavily into my decision to have children or not
we're nearing the Idiocracy tipping point