i'm just going to go back over these since you don't really have anything useful for me to reply to
Originally Posted by Me! Lol!
- Climate change is a hoax "created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." - not a policy, but widely indicative of the policies one believes in. e.g. "I don't believe poverty is a problem;" clearly tells you that the speaker won't do anything to fight poverty and won't worry about adverse effects, right?
- Obsession with coal as an energy source, promises to heavily deregulate coal and natural gas mining and use. - Uhm, how is saying you're going to deregulate an industry not an actionable policy position.
- He will "cancel" the Paris Climate Agreement - Again, this is really just a policy of taking the exact opposite course of action as the person before you, but telling people you'll pull out of an agreement is definitely an actionable policy.
- "The Department of Environmental Protection (Environmental Protection Agency). We are going to get rid of it in almost every form." - 'I'm going to remove the EPA.' ... how is that not a policy? It's a very very clear action with real consequences.
- "70% of [federal] regulations can go." - Again, a very clear action in removing business restrictions and limiting citizen protection.
(especially when his actual policy is going to increase funding to 'America's water and environmental infrastructure')
...
Funny because in his policies he is literally allocating billions extra to "fix America's water and environmental infrastructure".....................
This is why you should actually LEARN THE POLICIES instead of going off whatever 2 second sound byte CNN wants to feed you. Because this is literally the opposite of the truth.
What are you trying to do here? Surely you're aware building infrastructure isn't the same thing as regulating business operations to protect that infrastructure and the people who use it, right? In addition (I don't mean to offend) you're surely not so ignorant as to somehow believe that supporting one justifies declaring actionable intentions to limit the other to abysmal levels. If anything, I'd think you should agree that there's a worrying level of dissonance between the two positions, almost giving off the appearance that whoever holds both might not know what the actual fuck he's doing without a speechwriter and a teleprompter.
I mean I specifically asked for policies and all you can think of are short little quotes with no context? Um, ok then.
My b, I forgot the stone-etched law that policy positions had to be long winded and immune to summation.
Holy shit you do know 1 of his policies.
"Rewriting the tax code to allow working parents to deduct from their income taxes child care expenses for up to four children and elderly dependents."
>evil nazi scum wanting people to be able to afford child care
lol you stole the words right out of my mouth!
Last edited by pouffy; Nov 13, 2016 at 07:30 AM.