Doc Brown
-
Posts
17,594 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Doc Brown
-
-
Any conversation about coal is hilarious. You don't need a single talking point on environmental issues. More expensive + less efficient = RIP.
You have to feel for the workers that lose their jobs though. It's just a $hitty situation.
-
Fossil fuel lobbyists and companies win again.
-
Which of the two party's candidates for the last 50 years have shown a decent level of interest in foreign policy?
Nixon (with Kissinger's help) is a given...
anyone else before you attack Trump for being shallow?
A decent level of interest in foreign policy? That's pretty broad. Off the top of my head, Bush Jr. withdrew from the Anti-ballistic program, Obama negotiated the Iran deal whether you agree with it or not, and Reagan played a part in bankrupting the Soviet Union by ramping up or military spending which helped end the Cold War. He then negotiated with Gorbachev and gave speeches to the Soviets about the importance of free markets.
-
what a brilliant maneuver by Trump (Or is Putin pulling the strings?). Pushing Germany/NATO to carry their own water will push them to improve relations with Russia. Once NATO-Russian relations improve, it will force hardliners in the US to back down.
I guess this is how Trumpists think that he's always playing 4d chess when in reality he shows little understanding of foreign policy. All Trump did was embolden Russia who is seeing their power increase in the world stage as they try to destroy Western alliances such as NATO and the EU. Trump just probably unknowingly ramped up the tensions between European countries and Russia. Why do you think McMaster and Haley assured NATO members they are fully committed to Article 5? Both W and Obama have privately pressured other NATO members to increase their GDP spending to Nato and they gradually have, but they also realized the importance of assuring our allies they are fully committed.
-
November 2016 study by Yale University. Even among Trump supporters interviewed, about half agree with staying in agreement. Margin of error is plus/minus 10 so take it with a grain of salt. http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/paris_agreement_by_state/
-
That's the hilarious part of the push to get rid of Trump by the progressive left... Pence would be far worse for their beliefs. But, hatred blinds people to the obvious realities, and the progressive left hates Trump to the point of being blind to the consequences of what they're pushing for.
I can see it both ways. You make a good point in that Pence will basically do what Trump's doing policy wise but push harder on conservative social issues. Historically, the two presidents that were impeached (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) and one that would of been impeached but resigned (Nixon), the opposing party won the next presidential election. However, the opposing party wasn't as inept and lost as the Democratic party is right now.
Would a non chaotic presidency that Pence would have actually force the democrats to examine what's wrong with their own party (identity politics, being in bed with corporate donors and Wall Street, blaming everybody but themselves for Hillary's loss)? You're going to get a more enthused Democratic base throughout the country no matter what happens and you're definitely going to have a democrat presidential nominee with less negatives than Hillary. Would Pence be too conservative for the normally blue states that Trump won (PA, MI, WI)? Would voters be as enthused to vote for Pence as they were for Trump in the swing states (FL, OH, etc..)?
-
No, she didn't. Not to her base, which is all she cares about.
She has a base? I mean say what you want about Ted Nugent saying Obama was a subhuman mongrel who should suck on his machine gun, but at least he sang Cat Scratch Fever.
-
Salon ran an article today about how her stunt is just red meat for "the manic right."
That's right. An openly far-left comedian holds a bloody, decapitated head of a sitting president, calls it 'art,' and in the eyes of Salon, it's the right who is manic.
Meanwhile, the Trump/Pence 2020 Campaign thanks her for her donation.
I just looked at their website and it's a crap website. It's Breitbart but on the left on steroids. Just the headlines alone...
"Maybe Violence Against Journalists is Starting to Become a Trend"
"Establishing 1984 for Today's Trump-filled World"
"What's Behind the Rise of Home Grown Terror on the Right"
"Republican Congressman Won't Say if all Americans are Entitled to Eat"
I'm sure these are the issues working class Americans are worried about
-
at least she has new material to work with in addition to those sarah palin jokes she's been telling the last 9 years
She's just trying to be relevant again and made a fool out of herself like when Madonna said she had dreams of blowing up the white house. Obviously, she crossed the line and then some and any American (let alone Republican) should boycott any of her stand up tours or whatever else she does.
-
Right. You said on one Post you'd vote D no matter what. Then later you said you wanted a prez that wouldn't go to war except as a last resort (as do I). I (mistakenly evidently) connected that since you always vote D and that's what you want, that that's what you think they do. I just pointed out that history says otherwise.
I wouldn't vote for a Republican for president no matter what, but if I didn't like a Democratic presidential nominee then I just would either vote 3rd party or not vote. Kind of like never Trump conservatives. I voted for Hillary because my number one concern was healthcare due to recent family health issues and was hoping they could work to fix the ACA even if it meant adding the public option. If not for that, I pry would of stayed home for the first time as their wasn't even a decent 3rd party candidate.
-
He was just being sarcastic.
About what? I didn't say anything about Republicans being war mongers and he went on a rant I guess countering liberal propaganda that only Republicans are always eager to go to war just because of one administration.
-
The 2% GPD is simply a guideline and Trump's not correct in saying that other countries owe us money. Believe it or not George W and Obama pressed nations to increase their contributions (not as boldly as Trump did). In 2014, countries not paying their 2% agreed to increase their spending for the first time in 20 years and 22 countries payed a higher % of their GDP than ever before. Merkel's comments were shocking imo as we are their strongest defense against Russian aggression. Apparently, Trump's speech and behind the scenes interactions made it seem like the other NATO members weren't quite sure if Trump was committed to Article 5.
Have the other countries been freeloaders off of us for so many years? Yes. I'll let the experts argue about Trump's strategy as I'm not sure of the economic situations of other European countries. -
Ron Paul, Bernie, Patty Murray, and 124 other Ds were able to vote against it along with 123 other D's. Somehow they were able to avoid the "hysteria and revenge".
Agreed and it took guts at the time to vote against it.
-
Where does this come from? The outgoing D Veep and candidate for prez both voted for the Iraq War which has resulted in death of 1,000,000+ brown people and thousands of Americans. Even if you believed the mushroom cloud nonsense, it was in NO way "absolutely necessary".
BO was elected and said he was going to end Iraq/Afganistan and close Guantanimo. 0 for 3 on that. Instead he fought wars in 7 different countries.
We entered Viet Nam and Korea under Democrat presidents. Clinton bombed the **** out if Iraq.
None of this has been "absolutely necessay."
D's love war just as much as Rs IMHO.
Oh, they both love war. Great for business. No doubt about it. I was just saying what I wanted in a president. Trump and Obama were lucky enough not to have to vote in the Senate for/against the Iraq War as that post 9/11 hysteria and revenge was still very much on the public conscience. I hope Trump puts as few troops in harms way as possible over his term(s).
-
As I said. Answer the following. Horseshit! You can't post something here, put quotation marks around it and then when confronted about it claim it was sarcasm. It makes you look wimpy. Either learn to actually do sarcasm well enough for people to know that it is sarcasm, or use emoticons. Aren't there some other qualities that you would prefer a president to have than "charisma"?
I'm sorry. I'll add sarcasm in parenthesis next time. Jesus. Of course I want a president who actually has the courage to stand up for his/her convictions and has a platform I can get behind. Other than that I'm a typical democrat who hopes to have a president who pushes for single payer so people aren't sweating bullets waiting to see what Congress will do, avoid war unless absolutely necessary and not increase our military budget, pro union, give money to public and not charter or private schools, higher taxes for the wealthy and big businesses, reinstate Dodd-Frank in its full form and undo any changes Trump made to deregulate wall street to hopefully avoid a potential crash (like in '08), at least attempt in some way to break up the big banks, and work in the best interest of the people and not your donors. That last one is a pipe dream I know.
However, free college, a federally mandated $15 minimum wage, and paid family leave is ridiculous imo. I like what Trump's done with beefing up border security, getting rid of some of the environmental regulations, and his proposed immigration ban that will eventually get through. That's about it. You can have a great platform, but if you don't have the charisma to sell it you won't win the nominee or the presidency.
-
I think the Bills have backed themselves in a bit of a corner here because they did not pick up his option. This means if Sammy has a great season, we will need to franchise him since his contract will be up, which will be very expensive generally and in terms of cap space. Add the uncertainty of how Sammy feels about not having his option exercised (or playing in Buffalo) and you may have situation where he will not want to sign a long-term deal with the Bills.
There are a lot of unknowns with Sammy, including his health for this season and after. I do not know if it is the right move, but you certainly can make the argument that getting a first round pick for Sammy would be appropriate value for Sammy under the current circumstances.
I disagree. The WR franchise tag this year is 15.682 million. Sammy's option was $13.582 million for 2018. With the franchise tag inflating a little bit we're looking at about a 3 million dollar difference between the FT and his option which isn't disastrous. If he has a great year and stays healthy and you have enough confidence in him to be a dominant player attempt to sign him to a long term deal. If you want another season to prove he can stay healthy then franchise him. If he continues to be hampered by injuries you just release him and are off the hook for the 13.5 million option. Having two first round picks next year means we can target a WR and a QB. If Sammy has a terrible year something tells me we can get our franchise QB and a talented WR to place across from Jones in next years draft.
-
That won't be a fluke.
He's a great player when on the field.
I meant if him staying healthy for a year was a fluke. We all know he is a top 10 WR when healthy.
-
Same deal with Gilmore- should've traded him last year just like we should trade Sammy this year imo
You need a trade partner first. Watkins is a frustrating case because when healthy he is a top 10 WR, but is obviously injury prone. Unless you get a high 1st rounder, I wouldn't pull the trigger. He could have a great year this year and next year we'd be arguing about whether the season was a fluke and whether we should use the franchise tag or sign him long term.
-
Horseshit! You can't post something here, put quotation marks around it and then when confronted about it claim it was sarcasm. It makes you look wimpy. Either learn to actually do sarcasm well enough for people to know that it is sarcasm, or use emoticons. Aren't there some other qualities that you would prefer a president to have than "charisma"?
The left's propensity to lie about stuff, only to follow it with "that was sarcastic" or "I was just joking," is why your party is left with Detroit and Macungie.
You remain hypocritical on virtually every topic that is important to you, mostly because your logic beats you into a corner, and the only response you have to the right starts with a lie and ends with either "that was sarcastic" or "I was just joking."
Remind us again how many millions of people the GOP has sentenced to death with their health care bill? Oh, wait. Let me guess. Sarcasm.
Never said that as that's just democratic rhetoric to paint the GOP as evil. What I do have a problem with is a president saying he wouldn't cut medicaid on the campaign trail and then proposes a budget and endorses a proposed health care bill that will cause millions to lose medicaid. I also have a problem with people like Kevin McCarthy and Tom Price saying people aren't going to lose Medicaid under their plan. Also, do you seriously think their would be a crowd chant at a Trump rally of giving tax breaks to the rich?
-
That's just insane.
Maybe Kasich
-
Can you post a link to the part that is in bold? Furthermore, you didn't come close to rebutting my post or explaining why "charisma" is so important to you.
The bold was sarcastic and charisma wins you elections. Would it be nice to have somebody who wasn't a cooperate democrat already bought and paid for win the general? Yes. However, if you give me the choice between Hillary (a horrible candidate) and any Republican, I will take Hillary any day of the week.
-
This is why your party is so bankrupt. It is filled with people more concerned with the success of their party than what is good for the country. The fact that your most desired character trait for a president is "charisma" is quite telling. Obama was the epitome of all hat and no cattle, and that is your standard? This is sad. Very sad.
Oh yeah. Republicans care deeply about this country and would never put party 1st.
I can still remember the Michigan Trump rallies of "Let's slash Medicaid and give tax breaks to the rich and big businesses to further accelerate income inequality in the name of freedom." Bernie Sanders (who continues to poll as the most popular politician in America by a wide margin) would of easily won the election because he ran on a platform that wasn't just Trump is horrible. Even that strategy still managed to win the popular vote. The Democratic Party needs a progressive platform that goes farther to the left or they will continue to lose. Just like the Republicans did in '09 with the Tea Party pushing the party farther to the right. Or they can continue to cry about Russia, Comey, sexism, bigotry, racism, etc... and continue to lose. Their choice.
-
I suspect Brienne is more likely to hook up with Asha
Nah, she has a crush on Jaime and King Renly before him (both hopeless for different reasons). Please make it Tormund.
-
Y'know, throughout our lives we've been offered lots of advice on what to do if you're sad.
Gray skies are gonna clear up...put on a happy face.
The sun'll come out tomorrow.
I simply remember my favorite things, and then I don't feel so bad.
Turns out, one of my favorite things to do when I'm sad is go to my DVR and replay my recordings of CNN and MSNBC reporting the results of that election night. It really does turn that frown upside down.
LOL. I think Republicans in California were extra satisfied with this election.
Global warming err Climate change HOAX
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
That's actually a good point for those who actually claim Trump doesn't listen to anybody. Check out contributions to Scott Pruit's campaigns over the years.