skiptumahloo

quote:

---

So Infowars doesn't understand net neutrality. Color me shocked.

---

Wait, so you're telling me net neutrality DOESN'T turn the friggin frogs gay? :lol:

The funniest part is, infowars is EXACTLY the kind of platform that would be dead in the water without net neutrality. All these idiots talk about the mainstream media and corrupt they are but don't realize it's those same big media conglomerates that will take over and squash access to independent outlets like infowars, and other, less stupid content providers as well.

(No Message)

quote:

---

Republicans made this claim against hillary

---

No they didn't you unbelievable idiot. Hillary used a private email server. Not an encrypted messaging app that automatically deletes all conversations. frick, learn to read before you try to talk about shite, haha.

quote:

---

Not really. What is trump deleting? Tweets? Private messages?

---

The story is literally about Trump and staff using an app that automatically deletes messages to keep them from being a matter of record. This literally the exact hypothetical situation OP asked about. Honestly, he probably read the story about Trump doing it and it inspired him to make this thread.

quote:

---

Not even close to the same kiddo. Not even close.

---

Umm, it is LITERALLY the exact thing OP was asking about.

quote:

---

I forgot to add an only answer in English disclaimer

---

Je vais rester ici en Amérique. Je suis un libéral, et j'adore les États-Unis!

Merci. Maintenant, va baiser ta mère!

quote:

---

There's is no such thing as voter fraud, remember?

---

I remember it being said that in person voter fraud is very rare, despite Trump's wild claims to the contrary, so far all available evidence supports that it is, in fact, rare.

This is an entirely different matter.

quote:

---

We've never seen a fighter like this in the White House. At least not in our lifetimes.

---

My god, how much kool-aid do you have to drink to convince yourself that incoherent, bitchy, high school style twitter rants are the mark of a "fighter"?

Any time you try to store energy or use that you previously stored, some of it will be wasted as heat. This is true of refining and the burning fossil fuels and also of storing and then using solar power.

However, this wasted energy as heat IS NOT the primary driver of anthropogenic global warming.

When a photon from the sun interacts with a solar panel, some of the energy is stored and some goes to thermal energy. Similarly, when you combust a hydrocarbon in your car's engine, hydrocarbon molecules and O2 molecules from the air react and produce H2O and CO2 molecules plus energy. Some of that energy goes to moving your car, charging your battery, etc, and some is wasted as heat.

But in both cases, that energy that's wasted as heat is not enough to drive global warming. The thing that causes global warming is that CO2 molecule that was produced. That molecule enters the atmosphere where it will remain for decades trapping thermal energy radiated from the earth and re-emitting it.

The energy wasted as heat from the initial reaction, both in the case of solar and hydrocarbon power, was a one time thing. However, only in the hydrocarbon case did we produce a molecule of greenhouse gas (CO2 in this case) that will continue trapping heat and re-emitting it back toward earth for decades and decades.

This was a good question, and the answers illustrates well why some forms of energy production cause anthropogenic global warming while others have a negligible impact. I hope you and the others here will read the answer with an open mind.

quote:

---

Know how I know you don't know squat about politics at any level of government?

---

Not interested, since you're just another one of this board's typical hacks that only sees what you want to see and appears completely ignorant of even recent history. Going back to at least Clinton, special elections due to appointments of a new president have never flipped parties. Why? Because they always pick representatives from safe seats to fill cabinet positions for obvious reasons.

Dems winning any of these seats would have been a historic upset. The fact that they were in question at all is bad news for Republicans. And frankly, if you can't grasp that, you should stick to watching school house rock and leave the serious political discussions to people who have a little context on which to base their opinions.