PDA

View Full Version : CNN Struggles to Find Democrat Not Voting Trump



DaHipsterDoofus
05-09-2016, 08:33 PM
FKN LOL Hillary dun goofd, working class democrats are wisening up!!



Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by six to one in Logan Co., W.V., CNN pointed out, but the residents are outraged over Clinton’s call to eradicate the coal industry.


“It was not easy here to randomly find people here who want Hillary Clinton for president,” CNN reported, adding that out of the nearly 20 random Democrats they interviewed, nearly all of them were already supporting Trump.


Logan Co. serves as a microcosm for Trump’s crossover support; across the country, at least 20% of Democrats would defect and vote for Trump, according to a poll by Washington-based Mercury Analytics.


Video in link.

http://conservativeread.com/cnn-struggles-to-find-democrat-not-voting-trump/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter



Shockingly the MSM has nothing to say about this. I also can't find the video uploaded to anywhere else.

TaeBoNinja
05-09-2016, 08:37 PM
FKN LOL Hillary dun goofd, working class democrats are wisening up!!





Video in link.

http://conservativeread.com/cnn-struggles-to-find-democrat-not-voting-trump/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter



Shockingly the MSM has nothing to say about this. I also can't find the video uploaded to anywhere else.
The media is desperately trying to drive a wedge amongst the GOP. If they unify, Hillary is toast

NVious
05-09-2016, 08:38 PM
Did George Soros forget to wire the funds?

holtmcg
05-09-2016, 08:40 PM
I hate Clinton, but coal needs to be eradicated. It's a vile source of energy and the only reason it's still being used is because it can be converted into a liquid or gas, and the fact that it's dirt cheap (no pun). The cons faaaaar outweigh the pros when it comes to coal and using it as a primary source of energy.

iifymbro
05-09-2016, 08:42 PM
The media is desperately trying to drive a wedge amongst the GOP. If they unify, Hillary is toast

I've been noticing this too, all they are talking about is this supposed GOP rift thats growing deeper by the day. Lol just lol they know they are fukked.

DaHipsterDoofus
05-09-2016, 08:44 PM
I hate Clinton, but coal needs to be eradicated. It's a vile source of energy and the only reason it's still being used is because it can be converted into a liquid or gas, and the fact that it's dirt cheap (no pun). The cons faaaaar outweigh the pros when it comes to coal and using it as a primary source of energy.

That's easy to say when your livelihood isn't on the line. WV depends on these jobs greatly and saying you're going to put them out of business isn't a very tactful way to transition the citizen to clean-energy.

OPGenesis
05-09-2016, 08:44 PM
I hate Clinton, but coal needs to be eradicated. It's a vile source of energy and the only reason it's still being used is because it can be converted into a liquid or gas, and the fact that it's dirt cheap (no pun). The cons faaaaar outweigh the pros when it comes to coal and using it as a primary source of energy.

Well maybe Hillary can hire you on her campaign, so you explain how you're going to create jobs using "green" sources of energy lolz.

After eight years Obama still hasn't figured it out.

holtmcg
05-09-2016, 08:45 PM
That's easy to say when your livelihood isn't on the line. WV depends on these jobs greatly and saying you're going to put them out of business isn't a very tactful way to transition the citizen to clean-energy.Actually, my livelihood is on the line, as is yours if we still continue to use coal.

OPGenesis
05-09-2016, 08:45 PM
I've been noticing this too, all they are talking about is this supposed GOP rift thats growing deeper by the day. Lol just lol they know they are fukked.

Of course they know they are fuked. The media is in full blown panic mode, and don't know how to stop the man.

holtmcg
05-09-2016, 08:46 PM
Well maybe Hillary can hire you on her campaign, so you explain how you're going to create jobs using "green" sources of energy lolz.

After eight years Obama still hasn't figured it out.Obama has helped create jobs in the energy department so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

rfp
05-09-2016, 08:48 PM
I hate Clinton, but coal needs to be eradicated. It's a vile source of energy and the only reason it's still being used is because it can be converted into a liquid or gas, and the fact that it's dirt cheap (no pun). The cons faaaaar outweigh the pros when it comes to coal and using it as a primary source of energy.

List them.







See location. I've never meet a Hillary supporter & I work all over the state. I've seen some feel the bearn stickers. I'd say 70 percent of the people ik are voting Trump, 30% Sanders but most of them are on that green living with mom or on welfare time

holtmcg
05-09-2016, 08:54 PM
List them.







See location. I've never meet a Hillary supporter & I work all over the state. I've seen some feel the bearn stickers. I'd say 70 percent of the people ik are voting Trump, 30% Sanders but most of them are on that green living with mom or on welfare timeEmissions, absolute devastation to the land surrounding the mines, plenty of humans getting squashed to death, arsenic, sulfur, mercury, floating amok, finite sources, expensive transportation, I mean... Need I go on?



Location: WV



Oh wait you'll probably just ignore this.

fitnessislife
05-09-2016, 08:55 PM
I hate Clinton, but coal needs to be eradicated. It's a vile source of energy and the only reason it's still being used is because it can be converted into a liquid or gas, and the fact that it's dirt cheap (no pun). The cons faaaaar outweigh the pros when it comes to coal and using it as a primary source of energy.

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you hate Clinton.

holtmcg
05-09-2016, 08:58 PM
I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you hate Clinton.You won't find a single post of mine EVER saying I will vote for her. Even the hardcore right wing crazies on this forum know I don't like her, and so do her supporters on this board.

Stizzel
05-09-2016, 09:01 PM
Who do we have on GOO suicide watch?

DaHipsterDoofus
05-09-2016, 09:17 PM
Who do we have on GOO suicide watch?

Me.

I left to get a taco bowl though...

rfp
05-09-2016, 09:19 PM
Emissions, absolute devastation to the land surrounding the mines, plenty of humans getting squashed to death, arsenic, sulfur, mercury, floating amok, finite sources, expensive transportation, I mean... Need I go on?



Location: WV



Oh wait you'll probably just ignore this.


Mining for lithium to power phones & probably your car is just as devastating to the land. Everyone knows it's dangerous & dirty. But let's put half the state out of work & their homes so no more ice melts.


Inb4 the state goes ghost & becomes a liberal tourists attraction.

NVious
05-09-2016, 09:24 PM
Actually, my livelihood is on the line, as is yours if we still continue to use coal.

As long as we don't have to read your staunch and I mean staunch ****posts, I think an apocalyptic future is something we can all and I mean all get behind.

A-GAME
05-10-2016, 12:27 AM
Is biurrifull

gluon
05-10-2016, 12:45 AM
Emissions, absolute devastation to the land surrounding the mines, plenty of humans getting squashed to death, arsenic, sulfur, mercury, floating amok, finite sources, expensive transportation, I mean... Need I go on?



Location: WV



Oh wait you'll probably just ignore this.

so quick to point out why burning fossil fuels is so bad, yet I guarantee utterly hopeless in providing a suitable cost effective alternative at a high scale that doesn't produce harmful waste

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Net_US_Electric_Generation_for_2009.jpg

maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and disconnect yourself from the grid.

Darkhare
05-10-2016, 05:20 AM
Emissions, absolute devastation to the land surrounding the mines, plenty of humans getting squashed to death, arsenic, sulfur, mercury, floating amok, finite sources, expensive transportation, I mean... Need I go on?



Location: WV



Oh wait you'll probably just ignore this.


absolute devestation?

What do you recommend? nuclear? LOL. Oil production = bp oil spill. fort mcmurray.

My understanding was that coal while seeming dirty is actually a very good source of energy.

StiffSproles
05-10-2016, 05:20 AM
I hate Clinton, but coal needs to be eradicated. It's a vile source of energy and the only reason it's still being used is because it can be converted into a liquid or gas, and the fact that it's dirt cheap (no pun). The cons faaaaar outweigh the pros when it comes to coal and using it as a primary source of energy.

Trump wants *CLEAN* coal. Well, the refined coal isn't necessary clean, but cleaner than the traditional form.

Darkhare
05-10-2016, 05:22 AM
Who do we have on GOO suicide watch?


Let's get Holtmcg (whatever his name is) on that.. they can share lies and cries.

Stizzel
05-10-2016, 05:30 AM
absolute devestation?

What do you recommend? nuclear? LOL. Oil production = bp oil spill. fort mcmurray.

My understanding was that coal while seeming dirty is actually a very good source of energy.

It is a very inexpensive source of energy and there's nothing available right now to replace it. These crusades let you know just how little liberals care about the poor. When the cost of living skyrockets there will be that many more people struggling to survive and willing to listen to their sermons about the evils of capitalism.

illriginalized
05-10-2016, 06:21 AM
She did it to Kentucky too.

BullStampede
05-10-2016, 09:59 AM
It is a very inexpensive source of energy and there's nothing available right now to replace it. These crusades let you know just how little liberals care about the poor. When the cost of living skyrockets there will be that many more people struggling to survive and willing to listen to their sermons about the evils of capitalism.

This is the end game.

holtmcg
05-10-2016, 10:23 AM
absolute devestation?

What do you recommend? nuclear? LOL. Oil production = bp oil spill. fort mcmurray.

My understanding was that coal while seeming dirty is actually a very good source of energy.Yes. Absolute devastation. Areas around coal mines are obliterated once all the coal is gone. I thought this was common knowledge. Nuclear is a great energy source, but dangerous. Wind and hydropower are the most efficient, but they're more expensive. Idk why you wouldn't listen to me. I only have a bachelors in geology and a masters in geophysics. But hey, listen to Fox News. They seem to know everything.



Oh wait.

holtmcg
05-10-2016, 10:27 AM
Let's get Holtmcg (whatever his name is) on that.. they can share lies and cries.Why would I be on suicide watch? I hate Hillary and if I was going to vote, I'd vote Trump. If anything, you should be rooting for me.

iifymbro
05-10-2016, 10:29 AM
Yes. Absolute devastation. Areas around coal mines are obliterated once all the coal is gone. I thought this was common knowledge. Nuclear is a great energy source, but dangerous. Wind and hydropower are the most efficient, but they're more expensive. Idk why you wouldn't listen to me. I only have a bachelors in geology and a masters in geophysics. But hey, listen to Fox News. They seem to know everything.



Oh wait.

Nuclear isn't dangerous when its done properly.

holtmcg
05-10-2016, 10:33 AM
Nuclear isn't dangerous when its done properly.There are a lot of risk factors involved.

Boxman
05-10-2016, 10:38 AM
so quick to point out why burning fossil fuels is so bad, yet I guarantee utterly hopeless in providing a suitable cost effective alternative at a high scale that doesn't produce harmful waste

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Net_US_Electric_Generation_for_2009.jpg

maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and disconnect yourself from the grid.

Still boggled as to why environmentalists haven't embraced nuclear energy.

Thanks to the new thorium-salt technology being widely adopted in India & China, the new reactors are safe and meltdown-proof. With the new tech, there can't be any more Chernobyl's or Fukashima's.

And still the left continues with their ignorant and outdated opposition to nuclear power. Germany is actually shutting down nuclear power plants and building new coal plants to replace them. Talk about dirty energy - and inefficient as hell!

Morons.

holtmcg
05-10-2016, 10:40 AM
Still boggled as to why environmentalists haven't embraced nuclear energy.

Thanks to the new thorium-salt technology being widely adopted in India & China, the new reactors are safe and meltdown-proof. With the new tech, there can't be any more Chernobyl's or Fukashima's.

And still the left continues with their ignorant and outdated opposition to nuclear power. Morons.Chernobyl is still like "lol I'm radiated"