Former model Amy Dorris alleges Trump sexually assaulted her in 1997

[Mikey 16,686]

6 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

 The Democrats from 1968 to 1992 only got 4 years in the Oval Office.  The GOP is deluded if they think Trumpism can't do the same to them.

Funny you should being that up! I had a college professor who swore and declared that the Republicans would be through for 25 years after the Goldwater loss in '64. Yet, as you say, the Pubbies dominated that time period.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

Funny you should being that up! I had a college professor who swore and declared that the Republicans would be through for 25 years after the Goldwater loss in '64. Yet, as you say, the Pubbies dominated that time period.

Of course it could go the other way.  Unforeseen circumstance like the Vietnam War and the protests, the racial upheaval in the late 60s after MLK's assassination and so on changed the calculus.  I'm not offering guarantees here.  But I am saying that I believe it's highly likely.  And I think it's reasonable to say that actually electing a guy like Trump and watching him bumble his way through four years is a far cry from simply supporting a losing nominee in a general election.

[Mikey 16,686]

14 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

electing a guy like Trump and watching him bumble his way through four years is a far cry from simply supporting a losing nominee in a general election.

I suppose bumbling, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I like the things President Trump has done more than I like the man himself. A short list would be: Made us energy independent, reversed Obama's draconian WOTUS (Waters of the U.S.) executive order, made a start on the wall in spite of blocking by the House Dems, turned our military loose to defeat ISIS. He's now successfully brokering Mid-East peace deals, something every president in recent memory has tried and failed to do, he's getting our troops home from "over there" albeit in in a somewhat slow and deliberate manner. I'll add appointing federal judges at a record clip, which should change the face of our judicial system for years to come.

I'll be happy with another four years just like these last four. PS: Except for the virus. I don't want four years of the virus.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

I suppose bumbling, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I like the things President Trump has done more than I like the man himself. A short list would be: Made us energy independent

No he didn't.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/13/donald-trump/trump-exaggerates-us-energy-independence/
https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article239077733.html

And the trend toward producing as much energy as we consume from other parts of the world is one that has been trending in that direction since 2010 at least.

 

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

, reversed Obama's draconian WOTUS (Waters of the U.S.) executive order,

Ok.  One point.

 

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

made a start on the wall in spite of blocking by the House Dems,

He claimed he'd build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.  He's built 5 miles of wall so far.  The House Dems aren't to blame here.  Trump's mouth writing checks his ass can't cash is.

 

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

turned our military loose to defeat ISIS.

He followed the same plan he inherited from Obama.  In the process he betrayed the Kurds who helped us.

 

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

He's now successfully brokering Mid-East peace deals, something every president in recent memory has tried and failed to do,

The accords with Bahrain and UAE with Israel are a very good accomplishment.

 

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

he's getting our troops home from "over there" albeit in in a somewhat slow and deliberate manner. I'll add appointing federal judges at a record clip, which should change the face of our judicial system for years to come.

Meh on the "getting troops home."  Point on the second.

 

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

I'll be happy with another four years just like these last four. PS: Except for the virus. I don't want four years of the virus.

Exaggerations on energy independence - not to mention riding trends we've seen for years that he had no hand in creating, bull**** about building a wall and how it would be funded, hamfisted and dithering handling of the pandemic resulting in more lives lost than needed to be, his inept handling of racial issues, the shocking and abusive handling of family separation at the border, tearing apart the Affordable Care Act with nothing to replace it, and so on.

That doesn't even get into the more generic leadership failures such as:

general lack of strategic planning

his "no matter what decisions I make it's your fault" mindset

surrounding himself with inexperienced or unqualified people - while ignoring or contradicting the few around him who are experienced and qualified

being obsessed with his image to the point that he watches cable news constantly then immediately rushes to Twitter to combat anything he feels made him look bad

Just as one relatively minor example of the third point above, President Trump walked out of a rally the other night in Minnesota.  Ginsburg had died while he was on stage giving a campaign speech.  Somehow he managed to get off stage and out of the stadium/arena and all the way to the steps of Air Force One and no one on his staff had informed him of RBG's death.  A group of reporters standing near the plane asked him for his thoughts on her passing and he admitted (and obviously looked like) that he had not heard about this.  He went on to make some kind remarks befitting a president.  But how in God's name does a president's staff allow him to take one step off that stage without getting in his ear or handing him a note telling him about Ginsberg's death so he's not finding out from reporters and having to process his reaction and what to say in real time on camera?  That's just total incompetence in the people you surround yourself with.

Of course the bigger example of that is him listening to quacks and crackpots on YouTube and pushing unproven recommendations and such on COVID while undermining people like Birx, Fauci and others who are experts in the field of infectious diseases.  You expect that from your Aunt Karen on Facebook, but not the POTUS.  

Even being kind, your list of accomplishments is a mixed bag.  That's not eye of the beholder stuff, it's a more honest look at the list rather than parroting a campaign flyer.

[Mikey 16,686]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Even being kind, your list of accomplishments is a mixed bag.  That's not eye of the beholder stuff, it's a more honest look at the list rather than parroting a campaign flyer.

I know. We've all been told that the record employment numbers were the result of Obama's actions, not Trumps, that all the other positive things were going to happen anyway and Benghazi, like the Holocaust, is a myth.

Anybody that thought Mexico would pay for the wall is a fool. Trump exaggerates and blusters on. Who cares? He does good things and gets results. Case in point: The ventilators. It was said that there wouldn't be enough and doctors would be taking old people off them to save young lives. Our President lit a fire under U.S. industry and "just like that", as Forrest Gums says, we had a big supply for ourselves and were exporting ventilators.

President Trump has proven to be a lot better than anyone can imaging Hillary being and he'll be better for America than the socialist Biden/Harris ticket. (Or is that Harris/Biden? They can't seem to figure that out.)

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

He followed the same plan he inherited from Obama.  In the process he betrayed the Kurds who helped us.

Please! He removed Obama's horrible "rules of engagement",  which was the biggest stumbling block to getting the job done.

[I_M4_AU 7,930]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

He followed the same plan he inherited from Obama.  In the process he betrayed the Kurds who helped us.

Please! He removed Obama's horrible "rules of engagement",  which was the biggest stumbling block to getting the job done.

Thank you for pointing this out. ISIS would have never risen to power if Obama hadn’t pull all of our troops out of Iraq at one time and leave that country without security in a transitional government.  As you point out, Obama put the handcuffs on and Trump removed them.

[johnnyAU 3,637]

11 hours ago, Mikey said:

I like the things President Trump has done more than I like the man himself.

Well, I'm happy he pulled out of the ridiculous Paris Accord. 

[homersapien 11,423]

39 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Well, I'm happy he pulled out of the ridiculous Paris Accord. 

Ridiculous?

You do understand that the Paris Accord was about each country developing and haring their own independently developed goals and not imposing requirements on it's members don't you?  

It imposed no new legal obligations on the U.S.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know

I constantly hear AGW action critics complaining or asking why we should be taking action on AGW when China/India/...whomever is a bigger problem or it won't make a difference if they aren't doing anything.

The Paris Accords were a political format/mechanism to address exactly that issue.

[johnnyAU 3,637]

It's absolutely ridiculous. It would bleed the US economy of what $3 trillion by 2040 while effectively doing nothing to the climate. 

[homersapien 11,423]

21 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

It's absolutely ridiculous. It would bleed the US economy of what $3 trillion by 2040 while effectively doing nothing to the climate. 

Where in the hell did you come up with that?

Again, there were no legal obligations with the Paris accords.  It was all voluntary.

Do you accept AGW as fact or not?

[channonc 466]

On 9/18/2020 at 5:11 PM, Leftfield said:

 

That's the bigger problem - getting reasonable people back in control of the Republican Party. Any hope that memories will fade is all for naught if the Republicans turn around and nominate another horrible person. And we've barely even talked about those in Congress yet.

Seeing that we have a few that believe in the QAnnon movement will be elected to Congress has made me think that there is no way the ship will be turned quickly on the other side of the aisle.

[TexasTiger 12,992]

1 minute ago, channonc said:

Seeing that we have a few that believe in the QAnnon movement will be elected to Congress has made me think that there is no way the ship will be turned quickly on the other side of the aisle.

The Q adherents need to be the face of the GOP, just as the GOP portrays “the Squad” as the face of Democrats. Reject them or own them.

[auskip07 930]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Where in the hell did you come up with that?

Again, there were no legal obligations with the Paris accords.  It was all voluntary.

Do you accept AGW as fact or not?

"President Obama committed the United States to contributing US$3 billion to the Green Climate Fund"     

It was also in the news when he did it.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

On 9/19/2020 at 8:55 AM, TitanTiger said:

Of course it could go the other way.  Unforeseen circumstance like the Vietnam War and the protests, the racial upheaval in the late 60s after MLK's assassination and so on changed the calculus.  I'm not offering guarantees here.  But I am saying that I believe it's highly likely.  And I think it's reasonable to say that actually electing a guy like Trump and watching him bumble his way through four years is a far cry from simply supporting a losing nominee in a general election.

Of course one other thing in the Democrats favor is the sheer raw numbers of voters they have compared to the Republicans.  Remember that of the last 7 presidential elections, Dems have won the popular vote 6 times, yet only have a 4-3 in electoral victories.  But dig deeper and you'll see that two of those three Republican wins were by razor thin margins.  Bush via a Supreme Court vote and Trump via 80,000 total votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Point being that the Dems have a larger margin for error moving forward based on all data and that it's far more likely for them to control the WH as opposed to Republicans.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Of course one other thing in the Democrats favor is the sheer raw numbers of voters they have compared to the Republicans.  Remember that of the last 7 presidential elections, Dems have won the popular vote 6 times, yet only have a 4-3 in electoral victories.  But dig deeper and you'll see that two of those three Republican wins were by razor thin margins.  Bush via a Supreme Court vote and Trump via 80,000 total votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Point being that the Dems have a larger margin for error moving forward based on all data.

True, though by definition, to win the EC while losing the popular vote, it would seem that by definition almost it would have to be razor thin in a state or two to get the EC win.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

True, though by definition, to win the EC while losing the popular vote, it would seem that by definition almost it would have to be razor thin in a state or two to get the EC win.

Certainly.  I just think a lot of hyper-partisans only look at the win or lose instead of understanding the deeper trend line.  It's like masking a bad defensive football team with an amazing offense that makes up for their deficiencies.  No one pays attention to that D until losses start mounting up.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Certainly.  I just think a lot of hyper-partisans only look at the win or lose instead of understanding the deeper trend line.  It's like masking a bad defensive football team with an amazing offense that makes up for their deficiencies.  No one pays attention to that D until losses start mounting up.

Yeah.  Of course some of this win the popular vote/lose the election stuff is the Dems own doing.  They have been congregating more and more in liberal states and running up the score in those while abandoning flyover country.

[DKW 86 7,438]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Where in the hell did you come up with that?

Again, there were no legal obligations with the Paris accords.  It was all voluntary.

Do you accept AGW as fact or not?

Okay, so Voluntary Agreements cost us nothing? Did you mean to say that if it was just Voluntary it would cost nothing? 
Whether Voluntary or not, it was going to cost the American Tax Payer a bunch. 

I am as out front on Environmental topics as i can be, but I think it if fair to say that some of the Agreements are heavy prices paid by the US while the rest of the World does little to nothing. I think it is silly for Americans to be driving gas guzzling, polluting, heavy cars all the time. I personally drive nothing over 2L unless i have the truck out to haul or tow. It is on the road less than 2 days a month. The family car, a minivan, is only 2.5L. Ethans Rogue is 2.5L as well. 

I recycle like a mad man. I use reusable Kuerig Filters and still feel guilty on heating water 24-7. 

[homersapien 11,423]

1 hour ago, auskip07 said:

"President Obama committed the United States to contributing US$3 billion to the Green Climate Fund"     

It was also in the news when he did it.  

The Paris Accord didn't require him to do so.  It was voluntary.

But bravo for Obama for doing it.  It showed genuine leadership and set an example for the rest of the world.   And $3 billion will be a drop in the bucket in the long term effort in mitigating the effects of AGW.   (But some of those mitigation efforts will generate off-setting economic benefits.)

Like Trump, you apparently have zero appreciation for the problem.  Being anti-science is no way of going through life. 

[auskip07 930]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

The Paris Accord didn't require him to do so.  It was voluntary.

But bravo for Obama for doing it.  It showed genuine leadership and set an example for the rest of the world.   And $3 billion will be a drop in the bucket in the long term effort in mitigating the effects of AGW.   (But some of those mitigation efforts will generate off-setting economic benefits.)

Like Trump, you apparently have no appreciation for the problem.  Being anti-science is no way of going through life. 

it was voluntary and like most things obama said it amounted to very little considering when he pledged the money  it was his last year in office.  
 

im often amazed when people who align with those who claim gender is fluid and that there are 100 different sexes  want to lecture people on "science"  when its only convenient for them to do so.    

Since you understand the science of lowering the earths temperature 1.5-2 degrees and are fully convinced that throwing your tax money at the problem will work i challenge you to convince me?     I have an Architectural degree from Auburn University including enough credits to qualify for an Environmental design degree so feel free to be as technical as possible. 

[DKW 86 7,438]

40 minutes ago, auskip07 said:

it was voluntary and like most things obama said it amounted to very little considering when he pledged the money  it was his last year in office.  
 

im often amazed when people who align with those who claim gender is fluid and that there are 100 different sexes  want to lecture people on "science"  when its only convenient for them to do so.    

Since you understand the science of lowering the earths temperature 1.5-2 degrees and are fully convinced that throwing your tax money at the problem will work i challenge you to convince me?     I have an Architectural degree from Auburn University including enough credits to qualify for an Environmental design degree so feel free to be as technical as possible. 

For the record, I just want clean air, clean oceans, clean rivers, etc. 
Anything that will save a forest from paper industry destruction. And Yes, I have two BILs now unemployed from the Paper Industry. 
And I will, and do, and have been,  $$$ supporting any organization to help get us there. 

Nature Conservancy, WWF, TheOceanCleanup, etc.

 

[auskip07 930]

13 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

For the record, I just want clean air, clean oceans, clean rivers, etc. 
Anything that will save a forest from paper industry destruction. And Yes, I have two BILs now unemployed from the Paper Industry. 
And I will, and do, and have been,  $$$ supporting any organization to help get us there. 

Nature Conservancy, WWF, TheOceanCleanup, etc.

 

this is something we all can get behind.   My wife sponsors the local adopt a-mile and volunteers us for others in the area.   If everyone took an active role the earth would be alot cleaner.   Even if its just so you can say you live in a clean area devoid of trash. 

[DKW 86 7,438]

2 minutes ago, auskip07 said:

this is something we all can get behind.   My wife sponsors the local adopt a-mile and volunteers us for others in the area.   If everyone took an active role the earth would be alot cleaner.   Even if its just so you can say you live in a clean area devoid of trash. 

I am so 'Boy Scout' on this that I pick up trash as I walk around the neighborhood. Cant understand anyone throwing trash out of a car in their own neighborhood. 
I have been part of two Adopt-a-Mile programs too. 

[homersapien 11,423]

2 hours ago, auskip07 said:

it was voluntary and like most things obama said it amounted to very little considering when he pledged the money  it was his last year in office.  
 

im often amazed when people who align with those who claim gender is fluid and that there are 100 different sexes  want to lecture people on "science"  when its only convenient for them to do so.    

Since you understand the science of lowering the earths temperature 1.5-2 degrees and are fully convinced that throwing your tax money at the problem will work i challenge you to convince me?     I have an Architectural degree from Auburn University including enough credits to qualify for an Environmental design degree so feel free to be as technical as possible. 

Do you believe that climate is changing and that it's primarily due to the result of carbon emissions starting at the beginning of the industrial age?

If not, I have little interest in trying to convince you otherwise.  It would be an exercise in futility.  (Been there, done that.)

Otherwise, I suppose we could debate the speed of such change and it's significance to our lives and long term future, but I have come to understand that committed skeptics will not change their minds within the time it takes for the consequences to manifest themselves in an undeniable way, even though the consequences are now beginning to be felt.

(P.S.: You don't seem to know very much about human sexuality either. Your dismissive statements on that science only confirm the futility of arguing with you about AGW.)

 

[homersapien 11,423]

2 hours ago, auskip07 said:

Since you understand the science of lowering the earths temperature 1.5-2 degrees and are fully convinced that throwing your tax money at the problem will work i challenge you to convince me?    

Oh, I forgot to mention:  From the statement above, you apparently don't understand my position in the first place. 

It's not that we should lower the earths average temperature 1.5-2 degrees - which I seriously doubt is possible at any price.  What's done is done.

My argument is we should immediately start mitigating future increases in average temperature, hopefully preventing it from reaching existentially threatening levels - say an additional 3 to 4 degrees C on average more than it has already risen.  This is certainly possible - if not probable - without immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And keep in mind future increases in the average temperature may not occur in a linear way.  For example, at some point the methane held in permafrost will be released in huge quantities, a process which is just beginning. It's called a positive feedback loop.  https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/