How about our great President!!!

[simple]

If you are a fan of Trump acting like as asshole in essentially the top diplomatic position able to be won....that makes you an asshole as well. 2020 has proven that being an asshole openly is a political position. The civilized world doesn't really know how to handle that just like Biden didn't last night.

Without the moderator it would have been just yelling. If you want that then I can only imagine how awful your relationships must be. That isn't how potential world leaders should discuss their platforms. No wonder major decisions in the world are being made without us at the table.

Again, America is embarrassed and the world waits for us to get our collective **** together.

 

[bholmlate]

Simple only 50% of American is embarrassed. The other half thinks that we finally have a leader that is standing up for them in the eyes of the world and making the world sit up and notice and stop laughing at us. Even though we now have tape of them doing the opposite. There is a very good chance of this continuing for the next 4 years and maybe longer since losing will only be viewed as a rigged election. We now live in a society that has two different realities. One reality is that everything is great. The president is great, USA is Great. the economy is great, Their way of thinking is Great. The other is Businesses are laying off people, the national debt has skyrocketed, Racial tensions are on the raise, A pandemic rages one with 1 million people dying in the last 9 months, financial inequality is growing, and US is no longer viewed as a world leader.

 

[simple]

It's no wonder he has his family members working for him. Another with a spine leaves his orbit as quickly as possible. I couldn't imagine dealing with someone who thinks like Trump does. It would be one step forward and five steps back cleaning up the mess he causes. Over and over.

You guys who work for yourself and by yourself have to admit you couldn't do it either. I've never demanded loyalty from my employees and don't make decisions or statements without a few points of view to reference. I'll admit when I'm wrong or don't know an answer. That seems like a basic leadership qualities. How does this clown not get that? Oh wait, he has major pyschological issues I forget. Is it smart to hire a lunatic to run a county?

I would like to think it isn't 50%. It is likely somewhere between 25% and 51% and we will truly find out in the popular vote. Too bad the electoral college doesn't take that into account. Nuts.

 

[Jaynelson]

Since conducting yourself in a manner germane to the position you (hope to) hold isn't important....maybe for the 2nd debate they can drunk fight in front of a 24 hour donair shop after shot gunning some Twisted Teas.. Why limit the real-ness now? Go full Jersey Shore mode!

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

Since conducting yourself in a manner germane to the position you (hope to) hold isn't important....maybe for the 2nd debate they can drunk fight in front of a 24 hour donair shop after shot gunning some Twisted Teas.. Why limit the real-ness now? Go full Jersey Shore mode!

I wont lie, this is exactly how i felt after watching it. It is not a constructive activity. If its going to be a **** show, then lets just fully embrace it and do the presidential version of 'bum fights'.

While there is a lot of policy I applaud Trump for, his ability to speak and carry any sort of professional demeanor is abhorring. I spend my days working with people across a wide array of industries and I work with so many people so very capable and professional in their careers and wonder how these 2 men we have to choose from are the best America can muster. Its rather disheartening to see.

 

[Mafesto]

We all know that Trumps supporters (myself included) are going to vote for him, while Biden supporters are going to vote for him.
The opportunity a debate offers is to win over the undecided. That's where an election is won or lost. Trump squandered that opportunity last night.
Trump put all of his chips in on the hopes that he could push Biden to break mentally in front of the country last night. When that did not happen, the probability of Trump winning in November fell substantially.
He disappointed me last night. But I strongly feel his policies are far better for our country than Harris' policies, and let's face it, Harris will be in charge, not Joe.
So he will still have my vote.

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

We all know that Trumps supporters (myself included) are going to vote for him, while Biden supporters are going to vote for him.
The opportunity a debate offers is to win over the undecided. That's where an election is won or lost. Trump squandered that opportunity last night.
Trump put all of his chips in on the hopes that he could push Biden to break mentally in front of the country last night. When that did not happen, the probability of Trump winning in November fell substantially.
He disappointed me last night. But I strongly feel his policies are far better for our country than Harris' policies, and let's face it, Harris will be in charge, not Joe.
So he will still have my vote.

Well put. I was surprised Joe kept his composure the way he did. Although I think it became apparent that was Trumps main push, not policy debate so Joe just had to stay cool and not get irritated. I beleive if it was more of an actual 'debate' not bickering session Trump would break Biden. Under pressure to remember and repeat any sort of facts is where Biden's mental state usually shows its holes. And having dealt with family members with dimentia before, once you start to see them break, they get so stressed out it goes downhill fast until they are able to 'reset' and remove all pressure.

 

[simple]

One thing people may not be aware of is that Biden has a stutter that he controls. That is why he closes his eyes and slows his speech like he does. It isn't necessarily dementia.

Anyway, Trump or any Republican again isn't getting my support until I start seeing some infrastructure improvement plans. This move to deregulate is a disaster and just makes it easier for private development to skirt rules so they can see profit quicker. Some regulations are definitely excessive but on the whole they protect people and the environment from poorly thought out infrastructure. Then the lawsuits happen and more taxpayer money is wasted fixing it in the future. I am vehemently against profits over people.

 

[leisureexpress]

And sometimes we have choices to make that aren't 100% clear, then reality sets in:

I actually thought that Tulsi Gabbard had a place in all of this, but the Dem/Commie party kicked her to the curb in short order.

 

[BLITZKRIEG]

This move to deregulate is a disaster and just makes it easier for private development to skirt rules so they can see profit quicker. Some regulations are definitely excessive but on the whole they protect people and the environment from poorly thought out infrastructure.

Please elaborate, give specifics on how this is a disaster.

 

[leisureexpress]

Theatric rhetoric is worthy of consideration, but sometimes real results are hard to dismiss.

 

[simple]

Please elaborate, give specifics on how this is a disaster.

Yet again you want me to do all the work.

What type of infrastructure specifically do you want to discuss? You know disaster is a generic term in this case right?

How about pipelines? Enbridge gas line ruptures? Keystone oil line ruptures?

How about dams? Edenville dam?

Want to talk about Superfund sites? You know, the environmental damage from past human efforts with little regulation?

Regulation is a part of improving processes. Deregulation is a part of improving profits.

Care to disagree?

 

[leisureexpress]

 

[Mafesto]

Yet again you want me to do all the work.

What type of infrastructure specifically do you want to discuss? You know disaster is a generic term in this case right?

How about pipelines? Enbridge gas line ruptures? Keystone oil line ruptures?

How about dams? Edenville dam?

Want to talk about Superfund sites? You know, the environmental damage from past human efforts with little regulation?

Regulation is a part of improving processes. Deregulation is a part of improving profits.

Care to disagree?

Allow me to comment on the Keystone oil line rupture as it was my neck of the woods.
210,000 gallons lost. Very prompt response and extensive thorough cleanup resulting in no evidence that a spill ever even occurred.
During cleanup process small rural communities benefitted from influx of workers who rented rooms, purchased food, fuel and entertainment related items.
I am not aware of a single complaint regarding any of these personal (which I find amazing).
The contaminated soil was actually hauled off site to a facility which "washed" it (for lack of a better term) and returned it to the original location.
When this company said it would take care of any spills, they were not lying.
After seeing all of this, much of it firsthand, I'm here to tell you that I would not hesitate to grant easement for them to utilize any of our ground for a pipeline.

All that being said...Trump cannot take credit for the spectacular job they did cleaning up no more than he can be faulted for any of the failures that you listed.
So exactly what was your point again?

 

[simple]

Good info. I brought up known ruptures. Left it wide open for discussion.

With deregulation that clean up experience would be different. We have emergency action plans because of regulation. Smart planning allows for teams to come up with customized solutions to fix the problem. Identifying risk and hazards is a critical step. Current administration seems to be really awful at doing much of this as they have leadership that says one thing, tweets another, and staff has to backpedal.

 

[simple]

Keystone XL project is an ongoing topic and has been contentious. The permitting process seems to be the main issue. Seeing as how I often have to get USACE and other federal permits I understand the process but I don't have a clear opinion on Keystone XL as it spans multiple states and countries so the permiting is far too complex for my understanding.

 

[Mafesto]

Good info. I brought up known ruptures. Left it wide open for discussion.

With deregulation that clean up experience would be different. We have emergency action plans because of regulation. Smart planning allows for teams to come up with customized solutions to fix the problem. Identifying risk and hazards is a critical step. Current administration seems to be really awful at doing much of this as they have leadership that says one thing, tweets another, and staff has to backpedal.

I would like to think that we could agree with a degree of regulation is necessary. To what degree is where we may disagree, but maybe not. For example, after Osama, most regulations needed to be rolled back to a certain degree. Fair statement?

 

[simple]

Fair but not significant. One regulation that I know of was problematic. "Waters of the US" got really weird under Obama. It didn't need to go away as the politicains claimed. It needed further definition. My problem with an administration run by assholes is that they make those efforts more difficult. We have an anti-science politician problem. A developer for a president who is also anti-science isn't helpful for the regulatory efforts. The greenies are going to protest everything but the actual people making regulations and permit decisions are hamstrung by bad policy making, often in the form of executive actions that are poorly written and confusing. It is a fight that we shouldn't be having.

 

[Mafesto]

You can have your opinion of our President, I respect your right to do so.
Just as in my opinion, Scientists are rarely politically objective.
They've been indoctrinated by liberal professors, and funded by left-wing organizations to the point that if a scientist posts findings contradicting the objective of the funding organization he is excluded from future studies. Therefore, self preservation motivates scientists to conclude the desired outcomes. This happens on both sides BTW, which is why we all can link articles that prop up our arguments.

The whole thing sucks, but it's what we got.

 

[simple]

Disagree. Your statement is nearly pure conjecture. Peer review doesn't work like that. Funding doesn't work like that either in most cases. This may not be your expertise but rather an observation based on limited data.

My guess is that you think that how climate scientists are viewed is how the rest should be looked at? That is a myopic viewpoint and I fear it comes from your media bias. Scientific research papers are released all the time and those that present new opinions don't get universal agreement right away. Anyway, it is just another field that should not have politics involved.