Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

You are dead wrong. First it would not shrink the world economy. The harm that fossil fuel companies do will destroy the economy of every nation on earth. Therefore, we would be saving the economy, not to mention billions of lives.

We blame the oil companies because they knew that they were destroying the planet. Their own internal studies showed this even before it was widely known by the public. Instead of acting responsibly, they spent millions to fund climate denial and influence public opinion.

You are making the same argument that people used to make about the tobacco companies. They shouldn't be sued because it's all the smoker's fault.

there is no world in which liquidating oil companies would not result in mass starvation, war and global anarchy.

There is no world in which allowing oil companies to continue polluting would not result in mass starvation, war, and global anarchy.

I'm talking about a coordinated transition away from fossil fuels. The oil companies would continue to operate in receivership for a period of time. Their assets would be used to fund this transition.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Alan, why are you even mentioning that Trump will get no more than 45% of the popular vote (and will lose big)? What does the popular vote have to do with anything?

Please read Article II of the US Constitution. I have linked it here. It discusses how presidents are elected (warning - the popular vote does not figure in to the equation):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Cool, show me a situation on which a candidate receives just 1% of the popular vote yet still has enough electoral votes to win?

Only 5 times in our nation's history has the winning President not won the popular vote.

IF we continue to see elections like 2000 and 2016 you will see a major push for reform.

Alan

The electoral college was designed specifically to prevent the type of identity-demographic separation that has occurred over the past 30 years.

Whether or not it should be so is another question I suppose, but it's functioning now as designed.

moderates suck wrote:

status-quo pragmatism is an ideology. This is where the blinders come in. He assumes the current state of things is the correct way and therefore dismissed out of hand things....

You are describing Trumpism. A 1950s status-quo ideology. It is not pragmatism because it does not work to implement new ideas and proposals. Trumpism works to eliminate all new ideas and return to the world of the 1950s.

Racket wrote:

The electoral college was designed specifically to prevent the type of identity-demographic separation that has occurred over the past 30 years.

Whether or not it should be so is another question I suppose, but it's functioning now as designed.

This is completely wrong. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.

Trump is IQ45 wrote:

moderates suck wrote:

status-quo pragmatism is an ideology. This is where the blinders come in. He assumes the current state of things is the correct way and therefore dismissed out of hand things....

You are describing Trumpism. A 1950s status-quo ideology. It is not pragmatism because it does not work to implement new ideas and proposals. Trumpism works to eliminate all new ideas and return to the world of the 1950s.

I agree. Trump supporters and moderates share a lot of assumptions in common. The moderates just want to return to a little later time (one where they can compromise with republicans, which is not going to happen).

Runningart2004 wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Alan, why are you even mentioning that Trump will get no more than 45% of the popular vote (and will lose big)? What does the popular vote have to do with anything?

Please read Article II of the US Constitution. I have linked it here. It discusses how presidents are elected (warning - the popular vote does not figure in to the equation):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Cool, show me a situation on which a candidate receives just 1% of the popular vote yet still has enough electoral votes to win?

Only 5 times in our nation's history has the winning President not won the popular vote.

IF we continue to see elections like 2000 and 2016 you will see a major push for reform.

Alan

There is certainly a correlation between the popular vote and the electoral vote, but that is all. The huge number of popular votes in California and New York skews everything. Again, the election is not decided on the popular vote.

Racket wrote:

agip wrote:

well at the risk of being rude I'd say the idea that the fossil fuel companies should be liquidated is one of the most unrealistic and foolhardy 'policy' ideas out there. Shrinking the world econpmy by 40% would not be helpful in any way for green initiatives.

And anyway, blaming the oil companies is like blaming drug dealers. It is us who burns the stuff. If we stop flying and eating and using concrete then the enviro crisis is over.

Keep in mind that Fat Hurts has at times advocated for military action and forceful coercion of other countries to meet C02 emissions goals and is of the opinion that climate change will cost billions of lives over the next 50 years.

He knows this because he's not a scientist, but he read one white paper once

Stop lying. I never advocated for military action. I merely said that it may one day come to that.

I do have a science and technology background and I am well read on this subject.

moderates suck wrote:

Racket wrote:

The electoral college was designed specifically to prevent the type of identity-demographic separation that has occurred over the past 30 years.

Whether or not it should be so is another question I suppose, but it's functioning now as designed.

This is completely wrong. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.

BLINDERS!!!!

yes it was partly to protect slavery but there were also other reasons.

but you choose the thing that modern progressives care most about.

but sure, ignore the other reasons. It's easier for you not to challenge yourself that way.

look through that tube, man. It's easier that way. You are right to make your life simple and easy rather than look at all the complexity of a situation.

Capitalism is already starting to phase out fossil fuels because renewables are cheaper.

The question is, do we do this over 10 years through aggressive government action or do we let the free market take care of it over the course of 100 years?

If we choose the latter, we will see mass starvation and our great-grandchildren won't live to adulthood.

Sally Vix wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Cool, show me a situation on which a candidate receives just 1% of the popular vote yet still has enough electoral votes to win?

Only 5 times in our nation's history has the winning President not won the popular vote.

IF we continue to see elections like 2000 and 2016 you will see a major push for reform.

Alan

There is certainly a correlation between the popular vote and the electoral vote, but that is all. The huge number of popular votes in California and New York skews everything. Again, the election is not decided on the popular vote.

Trump won with 46% of the popular vote with narrow margins in the swing states. For Trump to be reelected, the lowest he could go would probably be 45%. A decrease across the country should proportionally affect the swing states.

This fool is anti-illegal drug use. He has this to say before he overdosed. Chris Taylor, Safford City Councilor and executive director of Desert Eagle Addiction Recovery, said he believes the antidote to be a very useful tool in fighting the disease of drug addiction. By saving an individual on the brink of death via overdose, Taylor trusts that there will be more individuals interested in recovery. “I can’t count how many people I personally know or have heard of that decided to completely turn their lives around after a near fatal overdose,” Taylor said. “For many people, that is the wake-up call they needed to finally allow themselves to be helped.” When asked what he thought about the possibility individuals may see the antidotes as more of an enabling device than a tool for recovery, Taylor said that idea doesn’t hold water. “On the one hand, I see why people might think this will be the case, but I can tell you that it is a very flawed way of thinking,” he said. “When someone is in the throes of addiction, they aren’t thinking the same way a rational person thinks. The only thing that their brain in its altered state allows them to think is, ‘I need to get more drugs at all cost in order to stave off the intense sickness of withdrawal.’ I can tell you that nobody is thinking, ‘I can use more heroin now even if it kills me because I can just be brought back from the dead.’ It doesn’t work that way, and frankly, who are we to make that judgment? A life is a life. I don’t know how some people can be so callous and careless when it comes to human life.”

Republicans lose again wrote:

Nice going Republicans.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/arizona-congress-candidate-heroin-overdose/index.html

agip wrote:

moderates suck wrote:

This is completely wrong. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.

BLINDERS!!!!

yes it was partly to protect slavery but there were also other reasons.

but you choose the thing that modern progressives care most about.

but sure, ignore the other reasons. It's easier for you not to challenge yourself that way.

look through that tube, man. It's easier that way. You are right to make your life simple and easy rather than look at all the complexity of a situation.

Sure, man, what were those other reasons?

I've only spent years doing graduate work in this field.

Do you not care that the institution was started to protect slavery? Seems like you see that exclusively as a concern of the progressive left. I guess that is beyond the concern of moderates.

agip wrote:

BLINDERS!!!!

yes it was partly to protect slavery but there were also other reasons.

but you choose the thing that modern progressives care most about.

but sure, ignore the other reasons. It's easier for you not to challenge yourself that way.

look through that tube, man. It's easier that way. You are right to make your life simple and easy rather than look at all the complexity of a situation.

I'm sure you believe the Civil War wasn't about slavery either.

moderates suck wrote:

agip wrote:

BLINDERS!!!!

yes it was partly to protect slavery but there were also other reasons.

but you choose the thing that modern progressives care most about.

but sure, ignore the other reasons. It's easier for you not to challenge yourself that way.

look through that tube, man. It's easier that way. You are right to make your life simple and easy rather than look at all the complexity of a situation.

Sure, man, what were those other reasons?

I've only spent years doing graduate work in this field.

Do you not care that the institution was started to protect slavery? Seems like you see that exclusively as a concern of the progressive left. I guess that is beyond the concern of moderates.

of course I care about the slavery-protecting roots of the EC. I'm a moderate. I am interested in everything. You are on the edge of the political spectrum. You care about less.

and if you spent years studying it, you'll know the other reasons. So why are you asking me?

I won't waste my time when a quick google search can remind you.

moderates suck wrote:

agip wrote:

BLINDERS!!!!

yes it was partly to protect slavery but there were also other reasons.

but you choose the thing that modern progressives care most about.

but sure, ignore the other reasons. It's easier for you not to challenge yourself that way.

look through that tube, man. It's easier that way. You are right to make your life simple and easy rather than look at all the complexity of a situation.

I'm sure you believe the Civil War wasn't about slavery either.

oh is that your attempt at hyperbole? ok cool. You nailed it. Good job.

I'm going ignore you for a few days - you arent' much fun to debate.

agip wrote:

moderates suck wrote:

This is completely wrong. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.

BLINDERS!!!!

yes it was partly to protect slavery but there were also other reasons.

but you choose the thing that modern progressives care most about.

but sure, ignore the other reasons. It's easier for you not to challenge yourself that way.

look through that tube, man. It's easier that way. You are right to make your life simple and easy rather than look at all the complexity of a situation.

It's interesting to me that one of the intents of the Electoral College was to prevent someone without requisite pedigree from becoming President. Today the electors are simply slaves to their state's popular vote. That was not the original intent.

Fool people once, shame on you, fool people twice, shame on them....

Alan

agip wrote:

moderates suck wrote:

I'm sure you believe the Civil War wasn't about slavery either.

oh is that your attempt at hyperbole? ok cool. You nailed it. Good job.

I'm going ignore you for a few days - you arent' much fun to debate.

I accept your unconditional surrender. It's a good option for you.

Trump TrumpCONomy continues landsliding away.

moderates suck wrote:

agip wrote:

oh is that your attempt at hyperbole? ok cool. You nailed it. Good job.

I'm going ignore you for a few days - you arent' much fun to debate.

I accept your unconditional surrender. It's a good option for you.

Agip AGAIN has to announce that he is ignoring someone. Why does he (or she) never just EFFING IGNORE that person? Why does he always have to announce it. I don't understand why he has to bring attention to the fact that he has decided to ignore someone. If I want to ignore someone, I effing just ignore that person. If you want to take Vienna, effing take Vienna. Quit announcing that you are going to take Vienna!