Net Neutrality being overruled. please god tell me its a joke.

[Just Ebola]

"Other people have it worse elsewhere" can be said about literally any problem you are ever likely to face. It's not remotely helpful.

The fact that there are other places more hostile to LGBT rights does not excuse people in the US government from being hostile to LGBT rights.

Never said it did, of course the fact that other people have it bad doesn't make everyone's problems irrelevant. However, I find it kind of ridiculous that people consider this a "war on gays" when there is a literal war on gays going on that nobody ever seems to address.

And you were expecting me to be helpful? Me? Get outta town.

Believing that Trump won on a platform of xenophobia does not require one to believe that the majority of the population are xenophobic arseholes.

Voter turnout was just under 60% of those eligible.

Less than half of them voted for Trump. More voted for Hillary and there was Johnson and Stein slurping up a couple of percent each. Which gives us roughly 27% xenophobes.

So about a quarter. I for one am perfectly willing to believe that a quarter of the population is xenophobic to some degree.

Furthermore, I'm willing to concede that some of those 27% weren't voting out of xenophobia but were merely dumb enough to believe that Trump actually had their interests in mind or angry enough to vote anti-establishment without caring who gets hurt. Although those people were still willing to vote for a leader running on a platform of textbook xenophobia, so they're not off the hook just yet.

I'd hardly call his platform "textbook xenophobia". Plus you're forgetting about the demographic that just voted for Trump because they thought he was the lesser of 2 evils, which based on rhetorical evidence I'd say is a pretty meaty chunk.

I've never been great with numbers, but let's say it's hovering at about 15% xenophobic assholes. Which is still an alarming number, but it's not a justification for treating anyone who doesn't hate Trump as a drooling racist. And luckily those 15% aren't granted any amount of legitimacy, at least not by civilized society. Certainly not by me.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

One paragraph in and I'm already unable to trust the article. " Ajit Pai has aggressively moved to roll back consumer protection regulations created during the Obama presidency." What protection regulation? The past 8 years was an unending battle against the Obama administration (with some help from the GOP) trying to kill net neutrality and consumer protection. If they can't get this straight how am I supposed to trust anything else they have to say on the matter?

So you're just going to pretend that this isn't happening. There are sources in the articles about what the guy has done.

This is happening. The candidate you supported is doing this.

Of course he's going to. He's acted like homeowners weren't screwed when one of Trump's first moves was to jack up their mortgages.

 

[Zhukov]

I'd hardly call his platform "textbook xenophobia".

Mexico is sending us rapists.
Build a wall.
Travel ban on Muslims.
Judge isn't competent because he's from a Mexican family.

Hang on, let me check his Twitter... here we go.
"People pouring in. Bad!"
"Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country."

If that doesn't look like textbook xenophobia to you then you are safely beyond my capacity to convince.

Plus you're forgetting about the demographic that just voted for Trump because they thought he was the lesser of 2 evils, which based on rhetorical evidence I'd say is a pretty meaty chunk.

I've got them covered under the Dumb Enough category.

I've never been great with numbers, but let's say it's hovering at about 15% xenophobic assholes. Which is still an alarming number, but it's not a justification for treating anyone who doesn't hate Trump as a drooling racist. And luckily those 15% aren't granted any amount of legitimacy, at least not by civilized society. Certainly not by me.

Fair enough.

Oh, uh... you realise that you just estimated that over half of Trump voters are "xenophobic arseholes", right?

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

I know you're under the impression that you're under threat/suffering, which you very well may be. But not from our government. Don't lose sight of the fact that we live in one of the greatest Democracies in the world. We're immensely lucky, but this just goes to show that you're very out of tune with how gays are treated in other parts of the world. You're sick of it? Imagine what you're feeling magnified by 1000 and then being pushed off a building, and remember how great life in America can be.

"Other people have it worse elsewhere" can be said about literally any problem you are ever likely to face. It's not remotely helpful.

The fact that there are other places more hostile to LGBT rights does not excuse people in the US government from being hostile to LGBT rights.

Don't you know? If someone has it worse somewhere else, your problems automatically go away!

That's what the internet tells me, anyway...

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

And luckily those 15% aren't granted any amount of legitimacy, at least not by civilized society. Certainly not by me.

Do you LIVE in the USA, man? This is the country where Alex Jones and Micheal Savage are influential.

Just wondering...

 

[Just Ebola]

Mexico is sending us rapists.
Build a wall.
Travel ban on Muslims.
Judge isn't competent because he's from a Mexican family.

Hang on, let me check his Twitter... here we go.
"People pouring in. Bad!"
"Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country."

If that doesn't look like textbook xenophobia to you then you are safely beyond my capacity to convince.

Plus you're forgetting about the demographic that just voted for Trump because they thought he was the lesser of 2 evils, which based on rhetorical evidence I'd say is a pretty meaty chunk.

I've got them covered under the Dumb Enough category.

I've never been great with numbers, but let's say it's hovering at about 15% xenophobic assholes. Which is still an alarming number, but it's not a justification for treating anyone who doesn't hate Trump as a drooling racist. And luckily those 15% aren't granted any amount of legitimacy, at least not by civilized society. Certainly not by me.

Fair enough.

Oh, uh... you realise that you just estimated that over half of Trump voters are "xenophobic arseholes", right?

First up, I don't think he used the word "sending", that would denote that the Mexican government is intentionally shipping them over here. That'd just be ridiculous, from what I've heard he's basically saying that of all the immigrants that come here illegally, some of them are criminal elements. Which a lot of them are, I can attest to that having lived in Texas my entire life. Ya know, the biggest state, shares the border with Mexico. And what's xenophobic about trying to protect the countries borders? We're a democracy and we have every right to do so. I don't think anyone is suggesting that all illegals are rapists and murderers. As far as the wall, again what's wrong with protecting our border? Even if it doesn't stop all illegals, it will drastically reduce the amount of drugs being trafficked over. That's a good thing, no?

Secondly, calling it a "ban" is a bit of a misnomer. It's a temporary pause, that's lasting 90 days so the vetting process can be looked over and improved. And considering all the terrorist attacks as of late that have been claimed by radicals, I'd say it's a perfectly responsible thing to do. And again... it's 90 days.

As far as the Mexican family thing- I don't know. Haven't heard of it, maybe I'll check it out later when I can be bothered. But the way you've taken liberties wording these things, I'm just going to assume it's not as bad as it sounds. I'll follow up later.

I don't use Twitter, all that mindless screaming on the internet gives me a headache. And lastly, no. I estimated that possibly around 15% of his supporters might fall under the category of xenophobe. I did say I was bad with numbers, but I think that leaves like a solid... 85% or so. I guess you assumed the whole I was using was all of America and not just Trump supporters. And again, this is all just speculation.

And luckily those 15% aren't granted any amount of legitimacy, at least not by civilized society. Certainly not by me.

Do you LIVE in the USA, man? This is the country where Alex Jones and Micheal Savage are influential.

Just wondering...

Yea, have for quite some time now. I don't know who those people are, I don't follow anyone who's openly bigoted. I'll just assume Googling them would leave a bad taste in my mouth, so I won't.

And keep in mind I did say "civilized". Of course unsavory people will always find a pocket of fools that'll listen to them. But can you imagine if someone were doing an interview on cable news and started saying that blacks are ruining the country (or some other such nonsense)? They would immediately be ejected, probably fired, and scorned by everyone on social media. Their opinions would forever be delegitimized.

So that's what I meant when I said nobody holds the opinions of racists in high regards. Society at large.

 

[Saelune]

@Ebola_chan: Your answers to alot of this is "I dont know"... I think that says alot. You base alot of your opinion on...no actual information.

Im not making this shit up you know. I am not the most informed person compared to many other people here, but I do what I can to pay attention, and I certainly pay much more attention now than I have in the past.

Maybe get more informed before you question me on things I am apparently more informed than you on.

 

[Zhukov]

First up, I don't think he used the word "sending", that would denote that the Mexican government is intentionally shipping them over here.

Oh buddy, he most definitely said "sending". He said it a whole bunch. In quick succession, no less.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."

I count 4 "sending"s. Also a "send", so I guess that makes it 4.57 sendings.

You're so right, that would be ridiculous!

As far as the wall, again what's wrong with protecting our border?

Nothing wrong with protecting a border. A long wall in a sparsely populated area is just a horrifically stupid way of doing it. It will cost a fortune to build and maintain. Trump said $8 billion, but Trump's a lying moron. Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate Leader, presented an estimate of $12-15 billion.

Non-Trump related estimates have gone as high as $25 billion, and that doesn't still include ongoing maintenance, property acquisition or patrolling.

Even if it doesn't stop all illegals, it will drastically reduce the amount of drugs being trafficked over. That's a good thing, no?

It's a wall. A wall in the middle of nowhere. Walls do roughly jack shit if they're not patrolled. You think smugglers have never heard of shovels? Or ladders? Or explosives? That's not even considering how much of the smuggling just goes through the border crossings.

But hey, don't take my word for it, take take the word of Trump's Homeland Security Chief John Kelly:
"A physical barrier will not do the job. If you build a wall, you would still have to back that wall up with patrolling by human beings, by sensors, by observation devices."

Mm. Sounds expensive! Maybe you should chip in some extra taxes to help out, being such a big believer and all.

Secondly, calling it a "ban" is a bit of a misnomer. It's a temporary pause, that's lasting 90 days so the vetting process can be looked over and improved. And considering all the terrorist attacks as of late that have been claimed by radicals, I'd say it's a perfectly responsible thing to do. And again... it's 90 days.

That's a misnomer, eh? Well fuck, you'd better tell your president that because he called it a ban. It's right there in my post. Straight from the tiny fingers of the big man himself: "Because THE BAN was lifted by a judge".

The ban on Syrians is indefinite. (That being the country most of the refugees are coming from, what with the civil war and all.) The other countries are banned for 90 days, but that can be extended whenever Trump wants.

Your vetting process can already last two fucking years and goes through multiple security agencies. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html] What more do you want? Four years of vetting? Maybe five?

As for being reasonable, there was some research done by the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank. (I'm picking conservative sources here so this doesn't turn into a dirty-liberal-media-is-biased thing.) They concluded that the likelihood of an American being killed by a refugee from any country is 1 in 3.64 billion [https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis] and not a single lethal attack has been carried out in the United States by a immigrant or refugee from the banned countries. Nobody from Syria has even been found guilty of planning an attack.

Christ. It's almost starting to look like this whole Muslim ban was created by idiots and arseholes to serve the cowardice and prejudice of arseholes and idiots, eh?

As far as the Mexican family thing- I don't know. Haven't heard of it, maybe I'll check it out later when I can be bothered. But the way you've taken liberties wording these things, I'm just going to assume it's not as bad as it sounds. I'll follow up later.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

Go crazy.

If you can slog through multiple pages of Trump's inarticulate sputtering. Good God, it's even worse in text form.

I don't use Twitter, all that mindless screaming on the internet gives me a headache. And lastly, no. I estimated that possibly around 15% of his supporters might fall under the category of xenophobe. I did say I was bad with numbers, but I think that leaves like a solid... 85% or so. I guess you assumed the whole I was using was all of America and not just Trump supporters. And again, this is all just speculation.

Fair enough.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Yea, have for quite some time now. I don't know who those people are, I don't follow anyone who's openly bigoted. I'll just assume Googling them would leave a bad taste in my mouth, so I won't.

I'm finding a lot of people are suddenly pretending the right wing don't exist around here, even to the point of "I won't even look".

I wish that made them go away, but Savage and Jones's numbers just keep increasing...

 

[Baffle]

Don't you know? If someone has it worse somewhere else, your problems automatically go away!

That's what the internet tells me, anyway...

I was dead relieved when I read in the paper that someone had defaulted on their mortgage and lost their house; it cleared my mortgage balance all the way down to zero straight away. In fact, now the bank owes me money.

 

[Just Ebola]

@Ebola_chan: Your answers to alot of this is "I dont know"... I think that says alot. You base alot of your opinion on...no actual information.

Im not making this shit up you know. I am not the most informed person compared to many other people here, but I do what I can to pay attention, and I certainly pay much more attention now than I have in the past.

Maybe get more informed before you question me on things I am apparently more informed than you on.

That's funny because you seemed to have glossed over most everything I've said. But I guess having an emotional breakdown counts as a well-constructed rebuttal these days? If you want to cherry pick through everything I've said and pick out one or two points that you feel comfortable arguing then fine, pretend the rest doesn't exist.

Goes to show, once people have succumbed to delusion, there's really no waking them up.

First up, I don't think he used the word "sending", that would denote that the Mexican government is intentionally shipping them over here.

Oh buddy, he most definitely said "sending". He said it a whole bunch. In quick succession, no less.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."

I count 4 "sending"s. Also a "send", so I guess that makes it 4.57 sendings.

You're so right, that would be ridiculous!

As far as the wall, again what's wrong with protecting our border?

Nothing wrong with protecting a border. A long wall in a sparsely populated area is just a horrifically stupid way of doing it. It will cost a fortune to build and maintain. Trump said $8 billion, but Trump's a lying moron. Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate Leader, presented an estimate of $12-15 billion.

Non-Trump related estimates have gone as high as $25 billion, and that doesn't still include ongoing maintenance, property acquisition or patrolling.

Even if it doesn't stop all illegals, it will drastically reduce the amount of drugs being trafficked over. That's a good thing, no?

It's a wall. A wall in the middle of nowhere. Walls do roughly jack shit if they're not patrolled. You think smugglers have never heard of shovels? Or ladders? Or explosives? That's not even considering how much of the smuggling just goes through the border crossings.

But hey, don't take my word for it, take take the word of Trump's Homeland Security Chief John Kelly:
"A physical barrier will not do the job. If you build a wall, you would still have to back that wall up with patrolling by human beings, by sensors, by observation devices."

Mm. Sounds expensive! Maybe you should chip in some extra taxes to help out, being such a big believer and all.

Secondly, calling it a "ban" is a bit of a misnomer. It's a temporary pause, that's lasting 90 days so the vetting process can be looked over and improved. And considering all the terrorist attacks as of late that have been claimed by radicals, I'd say it's a perfectly responsible thing to do. And again... it's 90 days.

That's a misnomer, eh? Well fuck, you'd better tell your president that because he called it a ban. It's right there in my post. Straight from the tiny fingers of the big man himself: "Because THE BAN was lifted by a judge".

The ban on Syrians is indefinite. (That being the country most of the refugees are coming from, what with the civil war and all.) The other countries are banned for 90 days, but that can be extended whenever Trump wants.

Your vetting process can already last two fucking years and goes through multiple security agencies. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html] What more do you want? Four years of vetting? Maybe five?

As for being reasonable, there was some research done by the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank. (I'm picking conservative sources here so this doesn't turn into a dirty-liberal-media-is-biased thing.) They concluded that the likelihood of an American being killed by a refugee from any country is 1 in 3.64 billion [https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis] and not a single lethal attack has been carried out in the United States by a immigrant or refugee from the banned countries. Nobody from Syria has even been found guilty of planning an attack.

Christ. It's almost starting to look like this whole Muslim ban was created by idiots and arseholes to serve the cowardice and prejudice of arseholes and idiots, eh?

As far as the Mexican family thing- I don't know. Haven't heard of it, maybe I'll check it out later when I can be bothered. But the way you've taken liberties wording these things, I'm just going to assume it's not as bad as it sounds. I'll follow up later.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

Go crazy.

If you can slog through multiple pages of Trump's inarticulate sputtering. Good God, it's even worse in text form.

I don't use Twitter, all that mindless screaming on the internet gives me a headache. And lastly, no. I estimated that possibly around 15% of his supporters might fall under the category of xenophobe. I did say I was bad with numbers, but I think that leaves like a solid... 85% or so. I guess you assumed the whole I was using was all of America and not just Trump supporters. And again, this is all just speculation.

Fair enough.

I think the crossed wire here is that "sending" denotes that Mexico is intentionally rounding up their undesirable onto a party bus or something and shipping them over here to spite the US. I guess I misremembered the part about him not saying sending, but the sentiment behind it isn't literal. That would be ridiculous.

As far as the wall, nothing else has worked, illegals still pour over unchecked, why not try something new? keep in mind that it won't just be a wall, it's going to be staffed, patrolled, likely equipped with CCTV and might even employ drones. You can cite the price all you want, but compared to the existing national debt (You know, the one Obama increased more than any other president in history, but nobody seems to bring that up?) that's barely a drop in the bucket. You can act like the idea of a wall is preposterous, but walls have a pretty good fucking track record.

The Great Wall of China is 5,503.3 miles long, and was constructed without the benefit of modern technology. The entirety of the Texas/Mexican border is 1,254 miles long. Feel free to roll your eyes until they pop out of your skull, but it's a very feasible undertaking. And like I said, even if it doesn't stop all illegals, it will make a massive dent in the amount of drugs that are being trafficked over, and that's the primary reason I support that wall. The US doesn't owe it to you, or to anyone else to keep it's borders open, it's a free country and the people have spoken. Not to mention the fact that it's a great deterrent, even if it isn't 100% impregnable. If you knew there was a wall around your local Starbucks, even if you knew you could scale it- let's be honest. You'd probably just go to Dunkin' instead. That is, assuming you even live in the US, I'm starting to get the impression you don't.

And yea, as a Texas citizen (who's actually been to parts of Mexico and the border, and have seen it with my own eyes) I'd be glad to see my taxes go to the wall rather than shipped to Palestine, like the last president was fond of doing. I am such a big believer after all.

Right, I suppose it doesn't matter to you that of most of the terrorist attacks in the US (that have been growing in frequency at an unprecedented rate) were committed by people radicalized by these terror groups that are [/I] based[/I] out of some of the countries that are on the "ban"? And let's not pretend that extremists haven't tried to use legal immigration to infiltrate the US and other countries. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/29/isis-finds-success-infiltrating-terrorists-into-re/

 

[Saelune]

@Ebola_chan: You could have just said you were a Trump supporter and we could have just moved on.

Goes to show, once people succumb to delusion, there's really no waking them up.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The Great Wall of China is 5,503.3 miles long, and was constructed without the benefit of modern technology. The entirety of the Texas/Mexican border is 1,254 miles long. Feel free to roll your eyes until they pop out of your skull, but it's a very feasible undertaking. And like I said, even if it doesn't stop all illegals, it will make a massive dent in the amount of drugs that are being trafficked over, and that's the primary reason I support that wall. The US doesn't owe it to you, or to anyone else to keep it's borders open, it's a free country and the people have spoken. Not to mention the fact that it's a great deterrent, even if it isn't 100% impregnable. If you knew there was a wall around your local Starbucks, even if you knew you could scale it- let's be honest. You'd probably just go to Dunkin' instead. That is, assuming you even live in the US, I'm starting to get the impression you don't.

A: Much of the Great Wall of China (as in what we call the Great Wall now) was comprised of compressed earth, stacked logs and branches.

Spoiler: Han Era Wall, 3rd Century BC

B: It took centuries to get to the size that it is.

C: In the age when Emperors could say; "Screw it, the land from here to the fucking horizon is mine. Peasants, you'll all work for me on this thing I'm planning, but in truth it's taking us a couple of centuries to get this far, and you can expect to work on this until you die in a worksite accident."

D: Built by said peasants, who routinely died doing so. (1.5 million conscripted workforce, or approximately .4% of the entire U.S. population)

E: The possibility of challenges to eminent domain clauses alone, the road building necessary to get equipment to where it needs to be (requiring more eminent domain) will likely take up his entire presidency alone. Much less sorting out the contracts, materials, machinery, security, engineers, and so forth... not to mention if Mexico feels like you're impeding unfairly on Mexican territory they might, for shits and giggles, possibly bring a motion to the international court.

Oh ... and surveying. Plus the ecological concerns.

 

[Baffle]

the sentiment behind it isn't literal. That would be ridiculous.

People said that throughout the whole election nonsense. Turns out they were wrong. Unless that's going to be an actual physical metaphorical wall.

 

[Baffle]

Plus the ecological concerns.

Ha! Ha! Ha Ha Ha Ha! He doesn't have any of those.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Plus the ecological concerns.

Ha! Ha! Ha Ha Ha Ha! He doesn't have any of those.

But Mexico does ... or will at least pretend to.

 

[Just Ebola]

@Ebola_chan: You could have just said you were a Trump supporter and we could have just moved on.

Goes to show, once people succumb to delusion, there's really no waking them up.

Awesome, more proof that you didn't bother to pay attention to what I'm saying. I don't even consider myself a Trump supporter, I'm just not content to sit and cry because the country is going in a new direction. The majority has spoken, it's happening whether you're ok with it or not. Again, if you're not going to respond to any of my points, there's no discussion to be had here. I'm not going to put effort into being coherent if you're going to lazily scrawl a few lines saying there's no point.

And we're moving on regardless, you're clearly impervious to reason.

The Great Wall of China is 5,503.3 miles long, and was constructed without the benefit of modern technology. The entirety of the Texas/Mexican border is 1,254 miles long. Feel free to roll your eyes until they pop out of your skull, but it's a very feasible undertaking. And like I said, even if it doesn't stop all illegals, it will make a massive dent in the amount of drugs that are being trafficked over, and that's the primary reason I support that wall. The US doesn't owe it to you, or to anyone else to keep it's borders open, it's a free country and the people have spoken. Not to mention the fact that it's a great deterrent, even if it isn't 100% impregnable. If you knew there was a wall around your local Starbucks, even if you knew you could scale it- let's be honest. You'd probably just go to Dunkin' instead. That is, assuming you even live in the US, I'm starting to get the impression you don't.

A: Much of the Great Wall of China (as in what we call the Great Wall now) was comprised of compressed earth, stacked logs and branches.

Spoiler: Han Era Wall, 3rd Century BC

B: It took centuries to get to the size that it is.

C: In the age when Emperors could say; "Screw it, the land from here to the fucking horizon is mine. Peasants, you'll all work for me on this thing I'm planning, but in truth it's taking us a couple of centuries to get this far, and you can expect to work on this until you die in a worksite accident. But that's okay, bodies work as well as dirt when building a wall!"

D: Built by said peasants, who routinely died doing so.

E: The possibility of challenges to eminent domain clauses alone, the road building necessary to get equipment to where it needs to be (requiring more eminent domain) will likely take up his entire presidency alone. Much less sorting out the contracts, materials, machinery, security, engineers, and so forth... not to mention if Mexico feels like you're impeding unfairly on Mexican territory they might, for shits and giggles, possibly bring a motion to the international court.

Oh ... and surveying. Plus the ecological concerns.

A. Sounds about right. It's always nice when nature does some of the work for us. If only there was such a natural structure that could aid in bordering Texas and Mexico. Like, for instance, the Rio Grande. It's a lovely sight, really should see it someday.

B. Never said it was going up over night, it's still going to be a huge undertaking, but it's not the ridiculous, insurmountable task that some would have you believe. Those some having no knowledge of construction.

C. Slave labor was a bit of a common thing back in the day, but I highly doubt Trump plans on utilizing slave labor in 2017. He was elected by people who want the wall, it's not the whim of some maniacal tyrant. Of course, that's how some people like to paint it.

D. I refer you back to point C. Not to mention that any construction job is dangerous. Tons of people die every year in oil rigs, but I don't see the outcry about that. Besides, the wall will provide a lot of jobs to Texans that are sorely needed. You know, because unemployment has been so bad under Obama.

E. Of course there will be challenges when trying to undertake something so big, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it. And there were domain problems with the chain link fence that went up years ago, so those should mostly be out of the way now. It certainly shouldn't be a reason not to move forward.

I think it's pretty funny that most of the people who are so concerned about ecological impact live in huge metropolitan areas that are basically dedicated smog factories. Any environmental impact won't even hold a candle to places like LA and New York.

F. There is no F. It's probably happening.

 

[Just Ebola]

the sentiment behind it isn't literal. That would be ridiculous.

People said that throughout the whole election nonsense. Turns out they were wrong. Unless that's going to be an actual physical metaphorical wall.

What are you on about? I'm not gonna type out a short novella just so you can add 2 or 3 sentences saying what amounts to "lol, nope".

Maybe flesh out whatever argument you're trying to make and try again.

 

[Saelune]

@Ebola_chan: Your views on Mexicans and Muslims says all I need to know.

And that you think "the majority decided" says more. There is literally no way that is true. Popular vote? Nope, Clinton won more. And even then less than half the country even voted. No, a minority of a minority decided and everyone is suffering for it.

 

[Baffle]

What are you on about? I'm not gonna type out a short novella just so you can add 2 or 3 sentences saying what amounts to "lol, nope".

Maybe flesh out whatever argument you're trying to make and try again.

Novellas are fiction, funnily enough. But to explain: you said that the sentiment behind 'sending' was not literal. Throughout the election campaign, people excused Trump's less normal statements by saying 'He doesn't mean literally' (for example, the wall). But he did! Even though it's ridiculous, like you said. Any clearer?

Re: your comment on people living in urban centres being unhappy about pollution. Unpleasant though densely populated urban centres are, urban living is much more efficient and environmentally friendly than a series of smaller populations (of the same total amount) spread over a much larger area. Infrastructure and all that.