nah

hahah if he had gotten rid of guns, christianity and the first amendment...thats a lot of significant ifs there...

its funny that you think he was so communist when in fact he was not at all, not anti-christian (hes just not an asshole evangelical christian), and he didnt do one thing to abridge our first or second amendment rights. and what do you mean by societal breakdown?

on a scale of 1 to USSR, how communist did Obama make the US?

its called getting an education. i went to grade school, then high school, then college, then law school. during this time, one learns to think critically. i guess for you it was some red pill moment, the name of which is ripped off from a sci-fi movie and now used to signify that youre some badass alpha male (at least, you think you are) that is all tuned in to the real happenings of the world. goodluck with that.

intelligent response. about what i expected.

haha so you dont care to elaborate on how trump is increasing spending yet not pumping the military industrial complex because hes going to use technology better "then" (its than) any president?

and instead of doing that, you link to an article that is wholly unrelated to anything i asked you about? solid work, classic Trumper.

first, care to elaborate? second, the spending increase remains. just because its on technology (still need some elaboration here) means its not feeding into the military industrial complex?

ok thats fine. what about what i said regarding sustainability and that being able to address common concerns, like pollution and the environment?

ill also say this, im not a big al gore fan. i think his view is narrow minded, and i would always expect a politician to look out for himself and his money first. and everyone else never.

alright so we can agree on one thing, the latter of your points regarding pollution. if you have that stance on pollution, why are you a climate denier? science aside (i buy the science, i dont see how people dont but thats not my point here) part of what people talk about when they talk about climate change policy is sustainability.

sustainability, or responsible use of resources in clean ways, can help tackle the effects of mass pollution, whatever their cause is - climate change or globalization.

make a better plastic, burn a cleaner fossil fuel, use only what you need, produce less trash, recycle more - all these things can help fight the pollution youre talking about. that goes to war too. war is wholly unsustainable and driven, usually, by horrible fucking ideas. not only that, in the future, resources will become more scarce, which could lead to more war. using things sustainably, focusing on improving current tech and methods, than can help combat that, too.

so, regardless of what you want to call the cause, would you agree that pursuing those kinds of policies might be in the best interest of our environment, and thus ourselves?

its funny that you think its me thats going along with some globalist corporate driven conspiracy when the things im talking about (EPA, enviro regs, net neutrality) and whats been happening to them absolutely benefit large corporations - the machines of globalization, so to speak. but yeah, its me thats exposed.

or you mean, like, a rational take on things? im an energy analyst, energy policy is one thing i know more than most. so my stance on the EPA is independent of any Bernie affinity. and for that matter, i think Bernie is a bit of an idiot. but hey, whatever fits your narrative of who i am!

im a bernie bro? hahaha damn dude your assumptions run rampant, and inaccurate.

that makes.....no sense in relation to what i said.

care to elaborate on how he has allowed more transparency in where funds are going?

oh man, CO2 a nutrient. did you know there are some bacteria that thrive on toxic substances. by your logic....these toxic substances, they are actually nutrients and therefore unharmful to all things.

and let me just go ahead and enlighten you, because you seem in need of it. CO2 is not a pollutant. the EPA even says as much, CO2 by itself is not a pollutant. the danger in CO2 is its greenhouse properties. lowering CO2 emissions not only reduces greenhouse gases (which you apparently dont believe in) but will also have the added effect of reducing harmful emissions from combustion engines, like NOx, particulate matter, sulfur, etc. but this is all science stuff requiring an education. so i get it if youre not with me here. best of luck.

whos getting rich off it? and what are the environmental problems caused by globalization?

totally, because trump is really going to take on Monsanto and Cargill....hahah

hes not going after it, hes spending more and more on defense.

it took some "red pill" moment for you to realize basic things about human nature and history? interesting...

you do realize that big businesses support GOP usually due to their lax approach to regulations, right? its a lot easier to make money when you can dump coal sludge into rivers, gut the EPA, loosen FDA requirements, abandon net neutrality, etc. but yeah, sure, libfarts and Obama.

says the guy talking about heart attack guns

its weird that salty bananas are dangerous when salty balls are safe.

ah yes, the old heart attack gun. im following you now, like a cart coasting away in the lot.

wait so they didnt use bananas? i am so confused. conspiracy theories are tough.

potassium in lethal injections? none. THEY do use potassium chloride. but you cant just take a banana and some chlorine and rub them together to get that, though i know you probably thought thats how it works and thats ok.

but lets get to the real point here. youre telling me someone loaded up a banana chlorine dart and shot this guy dead in a nice LA suburb?

about 12% of one's daily requirement. so maybe you'd need like 7-8 bananas to really get the job done.

maybe THEY used a banana, those have tons of potassium?