although i expect more marches than violence, thats how we show our outrage

remember the pussyhats?

lol

Two-tweet thread. It was just easier to post it as screencaps than rewrite it all:

https://twitter.com/MarushiaDark/status/1227100114281541634

Oof.

well

look on the brightside

riots = more dead libcucks

also

>tulsi

>moderate

hhahahahahaha no

*When our temper tantrum doesn't work it's time to set the house on fire!* <:powerful:595334910764515338>

Several generations raised on the lie that they're all unique and special and they can be anything they want to be and do anything they want to do.

Has Trump said anything about the cats?

Is he going to do something about the cats?

Doubt he really cares about the birds. What a dumb ass , goes on stage rambling about windmills killing the birds.

The majority of "hate crimes" in the US are hoaxes @PurpleToad and "hate speech" is just hurt feels so that doesn't count either.

@PurpleToad No. I expect that establishment Dems should run because the far leftists will kill them if a moderate loses to Trump.

how the fuck do you get to be against wind farms but for oil like what the fuck is going on with NPC TRUPM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_farm#Criticism

deeps state feedsd trupmp oledddd

those wind farms are not as "green" as you think they are.

I don't think i have ever seen one where at least one turbine isn't going at any given time, not to mention all the extra cable and resources they take to build.

if they weren't being built by government programs/incentive I wouldn't mind so much, but they ARE being built with that money and will likely never pay for themselfs in most of the places they are being put up.

at they do harm wildlife, more then the hydroelectric dams harm fish that's for sure.

funny enough, nuclear power is likely safer then any other source of power, and it's "waste" is very easy to contain.

You can even process and sell the waste

this is also true.

people for some reason think of nuclear waste as a grean glowing goop in old 55gal drums hucked into the ocean.

People also seem to think that the reactors are all as unstable as Chernobyl and we're all one sneeze away from disaster

I've heard people use the Fukishima disaster as a reason not to build reactors the the UK

you mean the one in japan that killed more people in the panic trying to get away form the thing then in the disaster itself?

that's about all i know of the fukishima disaster.

It was still a disaster and there were legitimate concerns over reactor breaches and stuff like that

A lot of radioactive water

But it was caused by a double team of a Tsunami and Earthquake

sure, but i'm sure it was still safer then liveing near most chemical plants, and those are all over the place.

The point is, the Fukishima disaster was not because the reactors were unstable or fragile, it's because they were hit by an earthquake and then a Tsunami

Nuclear power is a lot safer than it once was, and the two most famous disasters were both caused by outside forces, Chernobyl by a botched experiment and Fukishima by natural disaster

Wind and hydroelectric are the only net gain energy technologies.

well that depends on how large you claim the system is.
hydro sure that is a very good system, to bad the enviromentalists seem dead set on getting rid of them and replaceing them with solar or wind, nither of those options are stable enough for modern power needs.