Pic unrelated but who are you guys all voting for in 2020?

pic unrelated but who are you guys all voting for in 2020?

Attached: 0.jpg (768x1024, 97K)

Other urls found in this thread:

houstonpress.com/news/5-objectively-good-things-trump-has-done-11286106
politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/
sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916303099
docs.google.com/document/d/1ra3fkdTASh4b4ioR_3tohvBkm2yzMFg95ckKgGT1uRE/edit?usp=sharing
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No one

Trump. The guy is a conceded asshole, but he's getting shit done for the country

>conceded
conceited

Not American but Andrew Scheer

/thread

Back to Sup Forums you sperg. If voting could do anything besides make people feel like they are part of the team fucking everyone over, they'd make it illegal.

Evo morales

I've been eligible to vote since Bush V. Gore but this will be the first time I cast a vote and actually think the person might win. I would have voted for Nader if I had bothered.

Trump all the way baby.

But I live in California, so my vote has never mattered. Except to maybe help him get the popular vote this time. I can give you the best defense of the electoral college you could read from anywhere, but the popular vote does look a lot better.

As much as I hate the guy for not being able to accomplish in 3 years what he said he'd accomplish in his first 100 days, Trump is my only choice, and the most viable one overall.

What shit is he getting done? Specific examples only please.

I would start with the most recent. Rather than going to war with Turkey, Trump pulled troops out of Syria. We shouldn't be in Syria. We shouldn't be in the Middle East. People kept saying Trump would start WW3, but his entire presidency has been measured steps and reduced foreign forces.

He's the least war-mongering president since Carter. He's met with China, Russia, and North Korea. No other president has ever done this.

It's hard to get a single inch because the anti-Trump psychosis is so strong literally everything he does is criticized as the worst possible action, even when it's flagrantly what everyone would have wanted if for example Obama had done it.

1/X

Trump bombs an empty airfield in Syria and got so much shit for it, you'd think he really did start WW3, in fact that was the rhetoric (From the Wiki article):

"Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) tweeted that the strike could lead the U.S. into a new long-term quagmire, and that "such engagements are disastrous for American security, for the American economy, and for the American people".[91] Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D–HI) gave a more critical message, and said, "This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to the death of more civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia."

Sooo, bomb an empty airfield that was being used to murder civilians with chemical weapons and the likes of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi talk of never ending wars and nuclear war with Russia.

Jump forward 2 years of Trump trying to get out of Syria and Turkey threatens to attack because they are hell-bent on fighting the forces who have been committing terrorist attacks against them for years. Not wanting to go to war with out NATO ally Turkey, Trump moves the troops but condemns the action. So he chose peace this time. What was the reaction from the same people promising nuclear war and perpetual war?

“You don’t turn your back on an ally that lost 11,000 troops fighting against terrorism through a tweet and a discussion with [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan." -Bernie Hypocrite Sanders

Similar sentiments from everyone else who decried Trump for bombing an airfield in 2017. Which is it?

Congress voted to condemn Trump's protection of our troops and refusal to go to war to protect Kurdish terrorists against our actual ally Turkey, but nary a fucking chirp as to what Trump was SUPPOSED TO do.

2/X

www.promiseskept.com

Ted Cruz. Because he was the Zodiac Killer and that was hilarious.

Vermin Supreme

"Gets shit done"

The man personally hasn't done anything other than making the US presidency a cringefest.

"People kept saying Trump would start WW3"

Might have something to do with our military and officers being fucking terrified by his next sperg of a tweet. He threatens countries every day, with no success so far btw.

>www.promiseskept.com
Yes, lets get our news and information about the success (and only the success) of the government from the government.

Oh sure. Besides, you know, lowering the unemployment rate to the lowest its ever been in the history of the country. And trolling the shit out of North Korea. And providing years worth of memes to see dumbass liberals cry over. And making the insanity of the Democrat party plainly visible to the entire country (mostly through how they are STILL going on about Russia despite the only evidence coming out being that Shillary is a corrupt fraud murderer).

Joe Walsh or vermin supreme, if I'm feeling up to actually going to the polls

Trump for sure!

Every single day a unified leftist media and politicians repeat bullshit about Trump "abandoning our Kurdish allies" and "giving Turkey a green light". Both are lies.

Shit rags like The Hill, and virtually the entire U.S. media make outlandish bullshit claims like "The Syrian Democratic Forces have long been U.S. allies in the fight against the Islamic State"

The U.S. didn't even begin doing a fucking thing in Syria until 2014. 5 years is not "long" for being allies. And the repeated use of "ally" is even more bullshit. The U.S. is an ally of Syrian Kurds in the way the U.S. is an ally of Russia and Iran. We all had similar interests in getting rid of ISIS, we fought nearby. The U.S. gave out weapons. That's it. We did that for the Taliban too. The Taliban, Russia, and Iran are not our fucking allies and neither are Syrian Kurds.

So the entire line is a FUCKING LIE.

Turkey on the other hand is a NATO ALLY. The U.S. created NATO and accepted Turkey as an official ally. TURKEY HAS BEEN ASSISTING THE U.S. MILITARILY FOR DECADES. The Kurds, like Russia and Iran, have been a one-way relationship with nothing more than a temporary mutual goal. That's not allies.

Furthermore even if the media or politicians would admit this much, which they won't, the Kurds the Turks are going after ARE FUCKING TERRORISTS. The northern Syrian Kurds have been sponsoring and committing terrorist acts in Turkey for years.

So we're in this upside-down world where Bernie Fucking Sanders and every other Dem and the entire fucking media are mad at Trump because he won't use American troops to defend terrorists in Syria against our NATO allies!!!

It's god damn insanity.
Trump made the right choice. Trump even came down hard on Turkey and he's not done. But in the meantime the same assholes accusing him of perpetual nuclear war for bombing an empty field are now attacking him for NOT letting our troops die for NOTHING.

3/X

I'm down to hear you defend the electoral college

>asks what he's done
>complains about an answer with source
>doesnt provide rebuttal other than "duh gubment source is bad"
Sounds about Sup Forums tier.

Vermin Supreme or Creepy Uncle Joe. I'm no fan of Joe Biden or liberal politics but the Orange Embarassment has got to go.

Donald Trump for me!

Attached: 892BB7FB-C502-4AED-8AD7-02C59E3D3220.jpg (474x314, 12K)

Why do you see Trump as an Orange Embarrassment?

It's literally just a coordinated media smear campaign that has been running for his entire time in office + the time he spent running for his first term.

The unemployment rate has been hitting an all time low every year since around 2009-2010.
Nothing Trump himself did or suggested has positively affected the rate, on the contrary, as we have cases of businesses quitting due too tariffs. Which btw, NO ECONOMIST AGREE IS BENEFICIAL.

> And trolling the shit out of North Korea

What is that even supposed to mean? He has told the public repeatedly that he would succeed in negotiating with them. He didn't. It's clear how little you are invested in politics and how you prefer memes and xD's to back this useless dude.

>providing years worth of memes to see dumbass liberals cry over

Yeah, those hilarious memes we haven't seen enough of since 2015. "Reeeee". Gets me every time.

>making the insanity of the Democrat party plainly visible to the entire country.

Is this serous though? You know we found a shitton of evidence, enough to convict and prevent people working for Trump, but never the man himself? Have you payed attention at all? Our leading investigators in foreign affairs have confirmed Russian meddling due to these investigations.

>despite the only evidence coming out being that Shillary is a corrupt fraud murderer

The whataboutism is great. You just completed the circle of an uneducated Trump shill. You repeat the exact same things without knowing anything about any one topic. Hillary has had multiple investigations my dude, it hasn't been CLOSE to what we've seen come out from the investigations of Trump.

>google Vermin Supreme
Holy fuckin dogshit this guy is the USA's version of Lord Buckethead, fucking amazing.

No. You misunderstand the question then. Everyone understand that things has happened since 2016. The question is what Trump himself has done and can take credit for. The amount of failures and negative impact from him directly greatly outdoes the positives. Also, I wouldn't go to Trump's personal website to get information about the status of his government.

My vote doesnt matter. My state is red and wont be switching in the near or distant future.
If I did vote, I'd vote for trump though.

Shillary's investigations have been less reported by the media because Shillary is a democrat and a woman and owns shares in media companies.

Retard.

Fuck it's late now man. I will try but it will only be half my best because my brain is fried.

-Main goal of designing US government was to protect the rights of its citizens and establish a workable "just" form of government.

-This specifically included trying to come up with "checks and balances" in multiple aspects of governance so that no single group or individual could easily wrest power and corrupt the system.

-These "checks and balances" included limiting the power of each of the 3 branches of the federal government within each other, as well as limiting power of the entire federal government balanced against state power, and individual power. It's a long series of efforts. One of them is the electoral college.

-Simultaneously to this, the founding fathers rejected Democracy. It was not considered a viable form of government. A problem we have today is that this word has become a new thing the "American Democracy" is a concept of social and political order that is different from the democracy the founders didn't want, which is direct vote of the people to positions of power and law.

1/?

Ahh I see.

I'm the retard not being educated on the top conspiracy theories.
My bad dude.

Lmao

Wait, so you know that trump has done everything negative and nothing positive, but the question is about what hes done?
This is how it's easy to spot someone that doesnt know what they're talking about.

>He still thinks the media in this country is unbiased
If Trump has done ANYTHING in his time in office, it's how absolutely owned by the left most of the big media companies are. And Hollywood too.

What has he (himself) accomplished since becoming president.

As mentioned, and probably flew over your head. Everyone understand that things has happened that past 3+ years. That is not the contended issue. I can slow down if its hard to keep up.

it's SHOW how absolutely owned

fuck

Nope, nice strawman.

The media is biased. All media is biased. Does that mean we stop believing in all media?

Sure, most media tend to be left leaning, as that tends to be more advertiser friendly.

The media having a bias doesn't mean the trials of Hillary are faked, staged or not covered at all. And who gives a shit about Hillary in 2019. Let her rot.

You know what. I'll help out.

here is 5 objectively good things HE has done/contributed to.

houstonpress.com/news/5-objectively-good-things-trump-has-done-11286106

I don't think you know what the purpose of news organizations is supposed to be.

It's to report the news.
Not give a political opinion.
Not try to influence the views and voting habits of its viewers.
It's to report the fucking news.

There's a reason why journalists, two or three decades ago, prided themselves on their neutrality. Regardless of how they personally felt, they reported only fact.

Today media is essentially gatekeepers to normie thought, and the only, I repeat, ONLY reason the left has any toehold in this country (especially with how insane they've become recently) is because the of the medias unending crusade to promulgate the left's political message by any means necessary; including the distortion, omission, or straight up falsification of fact.

So, you dont know what hes accomplished, but you know everything terrible that has happened is his fault.

politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

I'm voting on the god himself.

>I don't think you know what the purpose of news organizations is supposed to be.
It's to report the news.
Not give a political opinion.
Not try to influence the views and voting habits of its viewers.
It's to report the fucking news.

You miss the point. It's IMPOSSIBLE to be completely unbiased. However, that should always be to goal.

You probably think Obama was a good president cuz "muh cultured not racist"

-Some of the ways the US Constitution skirted direct democracy was having election for "representatives" rather than directly voting on laws. Further originally Senators were not elected by the people, but elected to office from within the House, as a sort of higher tier. But to counter balance this, The House, being directly elected, were given more weight in various actions. For example the Speaker is higher than any Senator.

-Maybe getting too far off on this tangent, but even the election of the House was balanced vs. pure direct democracy by allowing states to make the specific determination in who votes for them. This is a balancing of state-federal-individual, even on a very small level.

-The very same balancing was done with regard to presidential elections. Not only giving Congress and the Supreme Court powers to stop or remove the President, or even chose the President in certain occasions, the electoral college simultaneously prevented direct democracy and balanced large state power vs. small state power.

-Large state power vs. small state power was yet another concern in the "check and balance" system, it is precisely why House apportionment was based on state population, but Senators were 2 per state. Creating both was meant to give small states some power by having 2 Senators like any big state, while also balancing the fairness of acknowledging big states had more people so they get more House members.

- The balance of big vs. small state in the electoral college is seen very clearly in the last election. Trump won 30 states vs. 20 for Clinton. It's even more stark with counties. Snopes rules "false" that Trump won a lot of counties vs. Clinton, and then concludes with "2,626 to 487" So, OK. ONLY 2626 counties to Clinton winning 487.

-So what we see is Clinton won California. Which is a winner-take-all state, as is their prerogative per the Constitution giving states some weighted power, but they don't get full power.

3/X

It is not impossible at all.

The us was never intended to be a democracy. It's never been a democracy. It will never be a democracy. Have you ever read the constitution? Anyone that has read it even one time knows it's not a framework for democracy...

Bernie Sanders

I don't think you understand anything about any topic in dept.

Yes, the news is here to inform us. They shouldn't be biased or influencing us. However, that is always going to be impossible as a consumer. The facts also tend to have a left leaning bias. For example, objectively taking a look at what Trump has said during his presidency should be a red flag to anyone actually caring about credibility and facts.

>Today media is essentially gatekeepers to normie

Hmm. Depends on what you mean with normie. It's not negative to be informed about things. I'm not sure how to respond to any of that.

>I'm going to vote for a *literal* retard because despite being 34, I wish I was an edgy teen

/thread

Nice.

What do you mean? You think there is such a thing as completely unbiased reporting?
Provide ONE example of this.

Whoever the dem is because trump still hasn't legalized weed

See I mean EXACTLY what I said.
It is not in any way impossible to report news in an unbiased fashion.
The media chooses not to do so in order to influence public opinion towards the left.
This is not difficult to understand.

Also, facts do not "lean left" or "lean right", they are just facts. I will tell you right now that in almost (almost, not all) every single controversial topic commonly discussed today, the facts refute what the left tells you. The big ones of course being race, sex, and immigration. The only exceptions are in political positions which are inherently opinionated by their nature, such as abortions.

You'd have to go back 30 years to before the left took over the media and educational industries to find it.

Fortunately, that's easy. Go google any popular newspaper 30+ years ago.

I don't blindly absorb news.

I've listened to him talk. I've been to a Trump rally when it was in my hometown. I've read his tweets. Literal direct quotes from him make me sick to my stomach thinking "The president of my country said this?"

Direct quotes aren't a smear campaign, user. There doesn't need to be a smear campaign, he smears himself.

Further, the entire deal with Ukraine and Turkey right now.

I'm an Army veteran, the America that exists today is not the America I signed up to defend. I hope he's not only convicted of a serious crime with this impeachment, I hope his entire presidency is annulled. But I know that'll never happen.

Know this, user, he will be remembered in our history books as a dark, potentially pivotal (I hope), time in American history.

我爱死这个女人。

Attached: 1571030298459_wg4KigOiBs3Pd1hkCNrVpWltDi6lwJie=mLcvdKN0PVex15708_1571043205240.png (800x1204, 443K)

-What we saw in the last election is exactly why and how the electoral college was meant to work.

It's understood there are a hell of a lot more people clumped together in a handful of states. And their numbers do get weight, it's obvious with federal power. But the electoral college was SPECIFICALLY one of those checks where the population, the majority of people, if that majority comes from a MINORITY of states, doesn't get to decide the president.

-20 states don't get to outvote 30 other states.

The US Constitution and the founders never wanted a democracy and they didn't want the population to have ultimate power. In the interest of "brevity" I'll spare an equally long post as these about why the founders considered this more just. For now it just matters that that was their goal.

-So for most elections the electoral college is perfectly aligned with the popular vote. But in instances where the popular vote is lopsided and attempts to give a much smaller minority of states dominance over a majority of states, the college prevents it.

-This balance is primarily because U.S. was intended to be separate states.There was always an interest in allowing different states with very different ideals to exist together under a minimal federal power. And one of the protections to allow this co-existence of differing ideals between states was to limit the ability of some states, to dominate others,to a certain extent. Because none of these checks or balances are absolute. They are only tendencies. They would be unjust if absolute, but as they are, they are meant to maintain a system that gives some power to every level, big or small, but not too much power to any level, big or small.

er 4/?XwhateverI'mdone

mr.potatohead

...

Are you retarded? That's literally what I wrote.

Man it's hard to have a discussion with you..

>It is not in any way impossible to report news in an unbiased fashion

An unbiased fashion. What does that mean? I said it's impossible to be COMPLETELY unbiased. The person speaking, the person reporting, the person writing scrips and gathering data are all people like you and me. We have preferences politically. We can strive for objectivity, but completely objectivity is generally not possible with human interference.

>Also, facts do not "lean left" or "lean right", they are just facts

Sigh.. By this I mean facts tend to lean in the favor of the left. As the left tend to support science such as climate change and economical idea such as trickle down economics being a non-demonstrable.

>every single controversial topic commonly discussed today, the facts refute what the left tells you

Give me ONE example. Let's discuss it.

PFfhffFHFHSHSHHSH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy fuck how delusional can you get.
You must be the reason why the military is finding it nearly impossible to find good recruits.

So your example of completely unbiased newspapers were 30+ year old? You dont think the writers back then also had political affiliations, motives or attitudes? You think they wrote unbiased pieces on women joining the work force or African Americans? You have to understand that there is no such thing.

Solid rebuttal.

美国民主党狗娘的

Attached: Screenshot_20191018-220022882_1571407667147.png (1944x2700, 683K)

Trump-

Climate change is perhaps the only view the typical leftist is actually scientifically correct on, and even then, they get the cause wrong. The left likes to say that humans are causing it.

We aren't.

Human activity accounts for about 2% of the total amount of greenhouse gasses produced every year. The VAST majority of it is from decaying plant matter in heavy jungles like the Amazon, and another big chunk is literally methane in cow farts.

And inb4 you say those cows are here because of us - we've already controlled for that.

Here's some more unpleasant FACTs that the left doesn't want you to know:
Racial differences in intelligence, creativity, IQ, and aggression are absolutely real. And yes, blacks are lower than whites on every single intelligence scale you care to mention. Hispanics are about midway between blacks and whites, asians are slightly higher than whites.
Our scholastic system is failing; not because of lack of funding or methodology, but because of the Lefts unending crusade to lie about race to keep that minority voterbase. Left policies that push blacks and hispanics through schools even when they don't get the grades to pass, and then put them in colleges and universities where they can't hack it, are what has been driving our average test scores down for decades.
There are only two sexes - male, and female. Gender is not a social construct. It is an outgrowth of our biological state. And no, you cannot "transition" a child at early ages without extremely negative physical and mental repercussions; and those repercussions aren't from "society rejecting them" but from you literally fucking with their brain and body chemistry.

I'd put more but I ran out of space.

If it's hard to understand the idea of why it's more "just" to give more weight to a state than individual voters in an election, consider the UN. Every nation gets 1 vote. It's not based on population. Now imagine if the UN actually had power, and that individual votes were more powerful than state votes. Global politics would be entirely dominated by India and China. Absolutely all power would go to them. Does that seem fair? If everyone's vote counts, then yes it does. But we don't actually believe that. Because we understand the moral and social value of limiting the power of people who aren't even a part of your community.

That is why the electoral college exists. As much as California and New York leftists think the U.S. should be exactly as they dictate, the founders were 10 moves ahead. The rest of America can and chooses to not be New York or California, and thus they don't get to pick the president *every* time.


Bonus/Whatever

If you dont believe humans are contributing to climate change then you should Google what cfcs are and why they were banned

快说我爱他

the democrat

>The left likes to say that humans are causing it.

Sure, I agree that the phrasing tend to be a bit off. But at the same time the left end up taking it seriously. It's man accelerated climate change. The climate isn't a static thing, but we have drastically altered the development.
So, yes. We are causing drastic climate change (never seen before on earth), but it would change to some degree nonetheless.

>Human activity accounts for about 2% of the total amount of greenhouse gasses produced every year. The VAST majority of it is from decaying plant matter in heavy jungles like the Amazon, and another big chunk is literally methane in cow farts.

Domesticated cows, burnt down woods and forests, removing vegetation to create farm land and economical growth is all man made. Directly or indirectly. You probably know this but wont mention it for obvious reasons. Even a slight increase of gasses (due to us) increases the natural release of gasses. Like lack of vegetation and faster ice melting, which all contribute further to emit even more, stacking on top every time.

>Racial differences in intelligence, creativity, IQ, and aggression are absolutely real. And yes, blacks are lower than whites on every single intelligence scale you care to mention.

wrong :)
Old research and poor research talked about race and IQ in such a fashion without controlling for enough environmental factors. Look up ANY research on race and IQ the past 10 years. sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916303099
Highlights
•Eysenck provoked controversy with his hereditarian views on race and intelligence.
•He believed IQ to be highly heritable and race differences genetic in origin.
•Subsequent research has confirmed that IQ is heritable.
•Research has found no significant genetic determination of race differences in IQ.

Big difference between contributing and causing.
We are contributing 2% of the greenhouse gas emissions.

>aggression are absolutely real.

The amount of melanin has a correlation with your physical attributes. People with a physical advantage tend to rely on that more, regardless of race. The cause is physical advantage, not race. Yep, I've read the research. The difference between cause and correlation should be obvious.

Attached: 1562931971882.png (420x420, 9K)

>Hispanics are about midway between blacks and whites, asians are slightly higher than whites.

Maybe, if you still rely on the Bell Curve and old debunked science that WE KNOW have extreme flaws. Like bringing an African man a question in English with our numbers and ways of measuring IQ. It's hilariously dumb and YOU SHOULD be able to see that.

Sauce on your 2% and in biological systems changing things by 2% can be deadly like shifting your bloods pH by 2% in either direction can be very bad for your health. The amount of cfcs in the atmosphere that was destroying ozone was less than 2% and if we dont slow down that "2%" will only increase. Nice try tho

>Our scholastic system is failing; not because of lack of funding or methodology, but because of the Lefts unending crusade to lie about race to keep that minority voterbase.

Citation needed.

voting is for fucking idiots who think voting matters.

Attached: voting.jpg (800x420, 34K)

being a King Clown

>Gender is not a social construct.

Poor dude.. It is, by definition.

Science is VERY MUCH against everything you've stated so far.

docs.google.com/document/d/1ra3fkdTASh4b4ioR_3tohvBkm2yzMFg95ckKgGT1uRE/edit?usp=sharing

You know what words are, right? Maybe look up what the current usage of Sex and Gender is. Hint, they're not synonymous.

Trump. The Democrats continue to push the same intersectional bullshit they did in 2016. Until they abandon it, the Republicans will keep getting my vote. I'm tired of being told I'm evil because of shit that people who aren't my ancestors but looked sorta like me did while the shit my actual ancestors did is ignored.

People are answering your question, you just don't want to hear it. You are a faggot.

>I'd put more but I ran out of space

No go ahead. Put in more things you're wrong about.

Damn, got me again.

Good job ignoring when I said we already controlled for those dumb cows. Retard.


>sciencedirect
Leftist rag filled with false information.

Also the only studies that are well known are typically cherry picked data that leftists use to push their agenda. If you had ANY background in science whatsoever, you could spot the blatant flaws in the methodology done with the shit that you're about to try and shit out.

Here, have an infographic that is sure to trigger you.

Has nothing to do with melanin and everything to do with the fact that blacks are about 200,000 years behind in evolution compared to whites and asians

Attached: niggers are stupid and no it isnt because of socioeconomics.png (1120x2499, 420K)

I'd say it must be a sad life to be so brainwashed and handheld by the media but you don't even have self awareness.

Trump.

I am actually fairly liberal but tbh the left lacks motivation. Maybe after shit breaks down fully they can get their shit together.

Do share your sadness with us all.

You ain't liberal, you're just delusional.

Nice info graphic...that doesnt understand genetics. What is gene expression? Are all genes in your genome always being expressed?

yeah, I saw the things about cows, but I'm trying to explain how some man made things expand on the natural things.

>sciencedirect
Leftist rag filled with false information.

Fuck, which peer reviewed Journals am I allowed to use again?

>Also the only studies that are well known are typically cherry picked data that leftists use to push their agenda. If you had ANY background in science whatsoever, you could spot the blatant flaws in the methodology done with the shit that you're about to try and shit out.

Except that all new science controlling for elements the all science didn't debunk your claim with ease.

Nice info-graphic! I'm convinced.

>Has nothing to do with melanin and everything to do with the fact that blacks are about 200,000 years behind in evolution compared to whites and asians

I've read research on melanin and darkness correlating with physical advantage and that leading to more aggressive behavior. Citation needed for your other claim then.

He's allowed to have his own opinions bro. Doesn't make him not a homo though

Yeah. Wish I was a true redpilled alpha like you, repeating all the same things you lads say instead.

Quit being obtuse. We've had updated IQ tests for literally decades that are translated into the proper languages.

And if you're retarded enough to not realize that the very nature of an IQ test means you have to have a base to test against, then you yourself likely score very low on that same test.

Climate is changing. That is not the question here. What I'm saying is that human emissions is a red herring that everyone latches onto for political gain.

See my last post for citations on black intelligence; you'll easily understand why they need to be artificially pushed through by left wing politics. Pic attached is an anecdotal account from a teacher which supports that and also highlights the thuggish culture of blacks does not mesh well with education.
>inb4 hurrr anecdote
Yes it is; but it is used in support of previous evidence, not in and of itself.

Society being against something does not make society correct. 600 years ago, everyone believed the world was flat.

I don't post things I'm wrong about.

Attached: what it's like to teach blacks.png (724x8658, 1.22M)

I've never voted democrat in my life, but whoever runs against Trump gets my vote.
(And no, I didn't vote for Hilary in 16.)

>What I'm saying is that human emissions is a red herring that everyone latches onto for political gain
Pro tip: humans have an impact on our climate, even if you choose to not believe it