|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Nov 19, 2016 0:31:42 GMT 5
Happens with every president, people are too tied up in their political agendas.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 14, 2017 2:12:33 GMT 5
Seems like Trump thinks an anti-vaxxer (Robert F. Kennedy*) qualifies as an "expert" on vaccines. This would be the first time for an anti-vaxxer to get significant power of medicine in the US.
Science nerds are going to love how pro-science Trump is (not to mention his views on global warming).
*Like Trump, Kennedy thinks vaccines cause autism.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 28, 2017 16:37:46 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Jan 28, 2017 18:35:33 GMT 5
Yeah... Both are terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 30, 2017 18:09:20 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 3, 2017 18:49:58 GMT 5
Behold the glorious fandom of President Trump:  I have yet to understand why Christian fundamentialists like Trump so much, he represents the alt-right, not the religious right. I didn't think both would go so well together, but they apparently do. I also have yet to understand why someone who is really fond of pointing out how racist Darwin was supports someone even more racist than him. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 5, 2017 21:43:08 GMT 5
Not to mention Trump has been going on about how climate change has been happening for millions of years, so he’s not a young earth creationist, at least (it’s shocking how at least on that account he must be smarter than a significant portion of americans!). Or maybe he is, and he’s just too dumb to remember the core points of his own ideology…
But who cares, if you have fans like these, what can possibly go wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 5, 2017 22:11:47 GMT 5
I always found it funny that there is so much overlap between young Earth creationism and global warming denialism (most people who one tend to be another as well, they appeal to the same demographics), even though the most popular climate skeptic argument of all time ("It's been warming in the past, so it's natural") vitally depends on the premise that scientists can somehow find out what happened in the past, while the basic case for young Earth creationism depends on the premise that they can't. But then again, climate change deniers don't care for coherence at all. Most of them can't even decide if they take the "global warming is not real" or the "global warming is real, but natural" position. carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/3838574/300051/ |
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Feb 5, 2017 23:17:50 GMT 5
I always found it funny that there is so much overlap between young Earth creationism and global warming denialism (most people who one tend to be another as well, they appeal to the same demographics), even though the most popular climate skeptic argument of all time ("It's been warming in the past, so it's natural") vitally depends on the premise that scientists can somehow find out what happened in the past, while the basic case for young Earth creationism depends on the premise that they can't. But then again, climate change deniers don't care for coherence at all. Most of them can't even decide if they take the "global warming is not real" or the "global warming is real, but natural" position. carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/3838574/300051/ Have you ever heard of Lord Monckton? I've seen climate change deniers tout him out as the sort of ultimate climate "skeptic" who finally proved climate change is false. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 5, 2017 23:20:35 GMT 5
No, I'd have to look him up, but I think this is going a bit too far off topic now. Maybe we can continue in the "Republicans and Science" thread (I know he is an UKIP member, but he still fits there).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2018 1:38:49 GMT 5
Honestly, I'm not that fazed by Trump's victory, as far as I'm concerned both candidates sucked an equal amount of diddly dick. Personally, I think that Trump will have a hard time passing any radical reform as the establishment hates his ass, and If I'm wrong about that at least the DNC has learned they can no longer get away with blatant corruption and ignoring the demands of the demographic they are reaching for. 1. A year has passed since his presidency. He gets things done pretty easily, especially in the Senate when we have 51 Republicans and 4 Democrats consistently agreeing with what he does. 2. There is no corruption. The only reason the trials even took so long was because the RNC just had to find something wrong. But in the end? Nothing. And what demands of the demographic? Oh okay, I see. It has to reach the demands of the younger DNC folks. Well then maybe more of them should've come out to vote then, instead of crying and saying Hillary doesn't deserve the DNC primary wins. They underestimated Trump and the vote he could pull out, for sure Nobody underestimated Trump. The polls were never wrong. None of the polls said that Trump couldn't win, they just said he had a small chance. Because whoever wins more votes generally wins the EC, people just assumed that Trump would lose because Hillary consistently led in the polls. With the American voting system, it has probably been known that results like this could occur since the establishment of said voting system. I doubt the Americans would like to change their system, there has to be a reason why they prefer it over a much simpler "Whoever gets most votes wins" election style. Even with the sharp rise, still more than half want to drop the EC. If he surrounds himself with good advisors, this won't be that bad. Yeah, i have at least some faith. He may or may not have messed up picking Bannon though, leaning torwards the former probably. And... he didn't. How'd your predictions work out for you? Hillary would've been slightly less war lusty IMO. Both Trump and Hillary have aggressive foreign policy attitudes, but considering how Trump is handling North Korea right now, I'd say Hillary would be more responsible. Hillary is only domestically speaking liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 29, 2018 3:26:34 GMT 5
Hillary would've been slightly less war lusty IMO. Both Trump and Hillary have aggressive foreign policy attitudes, but considering how Trump is handling North Korea right now, I'd say Hillary would be more responsible. Hillary is only domestically speaking liberal. Yeah, I now think so, too. Obviously, I couldn't have predicted his current games with North Korea when I wrote the post back then. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 30, 2018 11:50:51 GMT 5
MFW soop replied to something from last november and then dicked off the animal forums. Lmao
"how'd it work out for you?" Fine? He's still in office. lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on May 15, 2019 21:04:34 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jul 30, 2019 4:04:11 GMT 5
Not even surprising. The democratic candidates this year are somehow more awful than they were in 2016.
|
|
