HeyYou

That's right now you're catching on.Good on ya. So, if all of them do it, and on a fairly regular basis at that, why single out trump for it? Not a single politician has stated a position, and then never varied from it. So why does it seem you think it a capitol crime for trump to do so? Or is it only OK when the dems do it?

Oooo, a politician altered his position on a topic by a tiny bit, and that makes him a 'hypocrite'. Well, I guess all presidents are hypocrites then.

I think being able to pen my own scrolls, with spells/effects that I would find useful in various situations, would make me far more likely to use them. (hence, the ability to pen scrolls showing up in Advanced Magecraft for Oblivion. :) )

Ok Chuckles,you win!!!You are the masterdebater now go find a mirror like a good narcissist and enjoy your victory with a lovely selfie.A word to the wise keep your face out of the video for it will,believe me,come back to haunt you. Hehe.. If you haven't noticed,i hate pumpkinhead,he's a narcissist too btw,so my motivation wasn't to debate it's attempt at improving it's approval rating,my only motivation was to point out it's hypocrisy.So your pumpkinhead took twenty planes and killed nine citizens,four of which were children,apparently murdering innocent citizens is a success in your book as long as it takes out 20 aircraft?Wow your kind are demented. Not your type?Wth?I am very hairy and strong like bull,what's not to love? And what hypocrisy would that be? Using facts to debunk your 'argument'? It's a war. In war, people die. Sometimes, those folks are civilians. The US military generally takes great pains to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, however, if there are civilians in the target area, there is not a lot we can do about that. Should we simply not destroy a key target, just because there *might* be a civilian there? Would that be a viable strategy? Not hardly. At one point in time, we bombed a city, killing thousands of civilians, just to see what effect it would have on enemy morale...... Of course, in those days, we didn't have 'smart' weapons, and our tactics for destroying a target was to drop a HUGE number of bombs, and blanket the entire area. Civilian casualties were guaranteed there. Not the case any more. Civilians still die, but, not even close to the numbers as in previous wars. Professing that 'even one' civilian casualty is 'too many' is unrealistic.

Only in very general terms. And not even that accurately. They point at generalizations and say "See!! See!! I told you so!!" Look back thru history, and you will find that these "patterns" they are pointing at, have been repeated numerous times already. It is nothing new under the sun. Their claims only convince the folks that won't educate themselves.

Hehe,my argument is not climate change,my suggestion was to impeach the most dangerous man that has ever held the office of president of the United States.I didn't know you were an environmental scientist whose research contradicts mainstream science or i would have not have posted such a foolish statement.Yes,America first is a great..um...slogan. :wink: Hmm,interesting,the title of this thread is,"What can be done to defuse America"but now it's the issue the world is facing the OP is concerned with. Since the OP doesn't think that the Trump presidency has an effect on this world there's not much more i care to say.Bye... I have a degree in environmental geoscience. I actually do have a clue, and I am not biased by who is writing my paycheck, or funding my research. I all reality, I don't think there is ANY way to defuse the current situation. We are going to have to let it run its course, and see what happens..... Cool,i admire your education though i never said anything about being biased.You might consider giving evidence or at the very least providing links to sources that would provide verification for your claims.Just a suggestion my young brother.... Young? :smile: I wish. I *might* be younger than you, but, I wouldn't expect by very much...... Just look at the history of the world. How many cities are under water, and have been so, for more than a thousand years? What caused sea level rise then? It certainly wasn't industrialized man....... Where I live, the climate has gone from tropical, to buried under a mile of ice, no less than six times, in the last few hundred million years. If that isn't evidence that climate changes, regardless of what man is doing, I don't know what would be. An easy google search will bring up studies that show that CO2 content, actually FOLLOWS temp change....... that evidence suggests that 'green house gases' that everyone is chicken littling about aren't necessarily the entire problem. I have little doubt that man is contributor, maybe even as much as cows...... but, we most certainly are NOT the "sole cause". I suspect we are simply accelerating a natural process. We can either adapt to the changing conditions, or, we can die out. Either way, the planet will go on. I don't think removing trump from office would make one whit of difference in defusing anything. Besides, would you really want "President Pence"? Some of his ideas are even more whacky than The Donalds..... Had Hilary won the election, we would likely be having the EXACT same discussion, just from different sides of it. :smile: At this point in time, we are a population divided, on purpose, by our government. "Divide and conquer" has more applications than just in War. They keep pointing at the 'other guys' as 'the enemy', so that we don't notice who the real enemy is. Our own government. hehehe,i will suggest that you are indeed younger than i for i am aged and very backward. I don't use Google i use Bing.Hehe.. Where did i say humankind was the f***ing sole cause?Where has anyone in this universe claimed that humankind is the sole cause of global warming?Are you just caught up in the rapture of alternative facts that is the invention of your brother in arms?Oops im sorry i forgot he is a draft dodger. Ok, but what if we found a way to curtail the amount of greenhouse gases spewed into our atmosphere by our own doing, is that a worthless endeavor?Should we just shelve any attempt to reverse or slow down what is considered a NATURAL process by my young friend?My opinion is that it's a process that we contribute to "bigly" ,to quote Trump,that will one day bring us to our knees if we don't move on to researching other fuel sources. I realize research costs money which could be better spent on the security of Trump Tower at 100,000 dollars a day forgive my impertinence.I'm not suggesting that the Trump administration is sucking the American taxpayer dry but then again maybe i am. Of course i do not want Pence in office for any lengthy period of time BUT,and it's a big butt,i believe Pence will be far more malleable due to his political ambitions than Trump will ever be.Trump is in his 70's his ambitions are all real time ,it's now or never for him,while Pence looks forward to a future that may accept him in another time around the wheel,Zeus forbid. There is no enemy here that i can see it's all the struggle of humanity to express itself through heroes or villains and whomever succeeds will live their lives shortly,will live their lives according to the whim and agreement of their supporters.We have and are the power we just don't know it yet. Perhaps not you personally think along those lines, but, the headlines I am constantly seeing, refer to it as "man-made global warming". Some of them flatly state that man is the sole cause, or, at the very least, the major driving force behind it. Of course, few, if any of them, have any kind of scientific background either. Then we have the the 'research institutes' that get their funding from the pro- side of the argument...... Which introduces bias all it's own. How long do you think those dollars would continue to flow if they came to the conclusion that mainkind is only a minor contributor?? That doesn't sit well with their agenda. Al Gore has made billions on global warming, and I am sure he would like to continue to do so. Blowing holes in his pet theories would likely truly annoy him. So far, not a single one of the doom-and-gloom predictions the AGW folks have been prophesying has come to fruition. Not. One. They are obviously missing something fairly important there...... That said, reducing the human impact on our environment isn't a bad idea, but, trashing our economy in order to do so, is just stupid. Why is it always the extremes with either side???? If the AGW crowd really wanted to help, they would do away with the ethanol fuel mandate. It actually is counter-productive. Looking at the entire cycle, from production, to consumption, ethanol in our gasoline actually results in MORE CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.... But, the ag sector makes big bucks on it, so, can't do what actually makes sense, have to keep those dollars flowing into the pockets of the already mega-rich. And this is only ONE of the major issues that divides our country. Neither side is willing to compromise. Both sides believe the other guys are 'nuts', to hold the beliefs that they do, when it is oh-so-obvious that they are wrong...... In this environment, there will be no compromise. The side that is in power, will implement their policies, and those will remain in place until the 'other guys' come into power, then they will roll back the policies of the previous administration, and put their own in place. This is nothing new under the sun, and is a cycle we have seen repeated over and over again, for the last several decades. It isn't going to change. The positions just move further, and further apart. Given your 'age', I would expect you to have already seen this.

Hehe,my argument is not climate change,my suggestion was to impeach the most dangerous man that has ever held the office of president of the United States.I didn't know you were an environmental scientist whose research contradicts mainstream science or i would have not have posted such a foolish statement.Yes,America first is a great..um...slogan. :wink: Hmm,interesting,the title of this thread is,"What can be done to defuse America"but now it's the issue the world is facing the OP is concerned with. Since the OP doesn't think that the Trump presidency has an effect on this world there's not much more i care to say.Bye... I have a degree in environmental geoscience. I actually do have a clue, and I am not biased by who is writing my paycheck, or funding my research. I all reality, I don't think there is ANY way to defuse the current situation. We are going to have to let it run its course, and see what happens..... Cool,i admire your education though i never said anything about being biased.You might consider giving evidence or at the very least providing links to sources that would provide verification for your claims.Just a suggestion my young brother.... Young? :smile: I wish. I *might* be younger than you, but, I wouldn't expect by very much...... Just look at the history of the world. How many cities are under water, and have been so, for more than a thousand years? What caused sea level rise then? It certainly wasn't industrialized man....... Where I live, the climate has gone from tropical, to buried under a mile of ice, no less than six times, in the last few hundred million years. If that isn't evidence that climate changes, regardless of what man is doing, I don't know what would be. An easy google search will bring up studies that show that CO2 content, actually FOLLOWS temp change....... that evidence suggests that 'green house gases' that everyone is chicken littling about aren't necessarily the entire problem. I have little doubt that man is contributor, maybe even as much as cows...... but, we most certainly are NOT the "sole cause". I suspect we are simply accelerating a natural process. We can either adapt to the changing conditions, or, we can die out. Either way, the planet will go on. I don't think removing trump from office would make one whit of difference in defusing anything. Besides, would you really want "President Pence"? Some of his ideas are even more whacky than The Donalds..... Had Hilary won the election, we would likely be having the EXACT same discussion, just from different sides of it. :smile: At this point in time, we are a population divided, on purpose, by our government. "Divide and conquer" has more applications than just in War. They keep pointing at the 'other guys' as 'the enemy', so that we don't notice who the real enemy is. Our own government.

Hehe,my argument is not climate change,my suggestion was to impeach the most dangerous man that has ever held the office of president of the United States.I didn't know you were an environmental scientist whose research contradicts mainstream science or i would have not have posted such a foolish statement.Yes,America first is a great..um...slogan. :wink: Hmm,interesting,the title of this thread is,"What can be done to defuse America"but now it's the issue the world is facing the OP is concerned with. Since the OP doesn't think that the Trump presidency has an effect on this world there's not much more i care to say.Bye... I have a degree in environmental geoscience. I actually do have a clue, and I am not biased by who is writing my paycheck, or funding my research. I all reality, I don't think there is ANY way to defuse the current situation. We are going to have to let it run its course, and see what happens.....

More like our political leaders decided that government service sole purpose was to make them rich. Have a look at just about anyone in congress. If they weren't rich when they got there, the most certainly were by the end of their first term. So why would they want to do what is 'right for the country', if that would actually cost them money? (either directly, or, via other avenues, such as campaign contributions.) The general public finally figured out that their votes really didn't make much difference. Kinda like a fart in a windstorm. Why do you think we had the lowest voter turnout in decades of late? Take a good hard look at our foreign, and economic policies of the last couple administrations. There really isn't that much difference between the dems, and the repubbies. And it isn't really difficult to see how BOTH sides sold us down the river of 'globalization'....... That's why the middle class is pretty much extinct, and the wealth gap is higher than it has ever been. The poor are getting poorer, the middle class is pretty much gone, and the rich are seeing record profits..... Around 5% of our population is doing "really well", the rest of us are barely scraping by, but, who does the governments policies support? The 5%.

If you ask me, NONE of the busybodies in Washington DC are morally qualified for their position. They are ALL liars, cheats, and crooks. They do NOT have the best interests of the country at heart, they have THEIR OWN best interests at the top of their priority lists. Term limits would most certainly help here..... And: Do we really want "President Pence"???? As that is what we would end up with, were Trump to be impeached. Of course Pence is far from the choice i would want to run this country but i believe Pence would be far more controllable than our current childlike president.Being an Atheist i have some major problems with Pence but i believe he will be much more reasonable than Trump will ever be.The Trump presidency is regarded by Trump as nothing more than a reality show,a way to get back at Obama and all the liberals that disrespected him.He is a child-man,a narcissist,an immature attention seeking fool. These are dark days,even darker than the Nixon years for we are dealing with a man that caters to white supremacists,a man that is a climate change denier,as is Pence BTW,which is a scientific fact but never-the-less they want to remove all funding for climate change studies.This child-man ran his campaign to appeal to the middle class but as soon as he became president he turned hard right,his Trump care health proposal was a huge tax break for the rich,in other words now that i'm president screw the poor and the middle class that elected me. Basing your argument on "climate change" isn't going to be a winning strategy. Is the climate changing? Yes, yes it is. Is man the SOLE cause? Hardly. Is man a contributor? Quite likely. Is he the MAJOR contributor? Still open for debate. Pence is even more of a right-wing-nut than Trump..... I REALLY don't want him as pres....... Trump, on the other hand, has backpedaled some, on a fair few of his issues. Congress also seems to be keeping him more or less "in check", on some of his more extreme views. Then we have his policies that people actually LIKE..... America FIRST. Something our government hasn't thought about in decades.

If you ask me, NONE of the busybodies in Washington DC are morally qualified for their position. They are ALL liars, cheats, and crooks. They do NOT have the best interests of the country at heart, they have THEIR OWN best interests at the top of their priority lists. Term limits would most certainly help here..... And: Do we really want "President Pence"???? As that is what we would end up with, were Trump to be impeached.

The rapier came about BECAUSE of those guys in several stone of steel. It would slide along the surface, until it found a nook, or cranny to sneak into, and poke the guy inside the steel suit. Firearms were still slow to reload, and on a fair few suits of armor of the time, you can still find the 'proof' dent, where it was demonstrated that the armor would indeed stop a musket ball. :D A good point. But you'll excuse my linear thinking. Before the musket, still plenty of armor, Longswords in service. Muskets arrived, armor, but no more Longswords. And aiming for breaches in an armor is no easy task. I find it so hard to imagine sneaking a flexible needle-like blade in there and on the right angle... and even if so, soldiers with muskets just went for the second best choice, simply because you can't discount the Longsword's weight and size as the most significant factor for its abandonment. Longswords ought to have been far more advantageous against armor than rapiers since these ones didn't appear earlier. It's just that additional matterial (muskets and their ammunition, regardless of their effectivity) adds an extra-level of effort when it comes to carrying Longswords. There is something more: A projectile fired from a musket need not to actually go past the armor to deal damage. Concerning bayonettes, I'll leave that to your imagination. non-penetrating damage is painful, yes, but, not debilitating enough to remove your target from the fight. Not to mention muskets weren't the most accurate things in the world.... (when did rifled barrels come about? :) ) And with rapiers, it wasn't so much as 'aiming' for a specific spot. All you really need to do was be relatively close, and the rapier, by its very nature, would do the rest. Bear in mind, still not the most effective method of putting down an armored opponent....

The rapier came about BECAUSE of those guys in several stone of steel. It would slide along the surface, until it found a nook, or cranny to sneak into, and poke the guy inside the steel suit. Firearms were still slow to reload, and on a fair few suits of armor of the time, you can still find the 'proof' dent, where it was demonstrated that the armor would indeed stop a musket ball. :D

Of course the insurance industry doesn't want a single-payer system. It would put them out of a job.

Yeah, folks like to label it in such fashion as to make it sound scary, and 'un-american'..... And that's why it has never passed muster. It has been brought up often enough, even as recently as when Obama was working on an update. He wanted single-payer, and even had democratic control of congress, but STILL couldn't get it passed. Ah well.

We should just do what almost every other 'advanced' nation has done..... Single Payer. Cut out the host of middle-men, and healthcare instantly becomes less expensive.

I agree. And that is exactly why it will never happen. :) The folks with the money make the rules. or block rules that would interfere with their goals.

Pretty much. :D Which is also why I really don't expect anything to change. Having to buy off another set of congressfolk every few years would be expensive. So, just keep the already bought and paid for folks in there. It's easier, it's cheaper, it's more effective for "them".

Well, congress has had low approval numbers for several decades. That doesn't come as a surprise. Perhaps the fact that those voters that you seem to think are disenfranchised, continually put them back in office, even though they don't think they are doing a good job, should tell you something......

Trouble is, the constitutional convention is only for adding/changing/removing amendments to the constitution. Do you think it likely that a term limit amendment for congress would actually pass muster? Any proposed amendments would also need to be ratified by two thirds of the states....... According to polls three out of four of us favor term limits for Congress. Cronyism and corruption are inevitable, the best we can do is limit the damage by imposing term limits on all federal offices, even our courts. Doesn't matter what the general populace thinks. We pretty much have no say in a CC. We can suggest, but, it is still the politicians that are running the show. Do you think 3 out of 4 potential congresspeople are going to be wanting term limits?

Trouble is, the constitutional convention is only for adding/changing/removing amendments to the constitution. Do you think it likely that a term limit amendment for congress would actually pass muster? Any proposed amendments would also need to be ratified by two thirds of the states.......

I am not sure a balance budget amendment is such a good idea..... at least, not without having some time constraints built in. Forcing the government to IMMEDIATELY balance the budget would have some far reaching consequences, none of which would be good....... Of course, even WITH a LAW dictating that they MUST have a balanced budget, I don't have a lot of faith in our government to actually accomplish that in the foreseeable future.

Pretty much this. I don't see a solution. The largest problem is our government doesn't actually represent us. They exploit us, in numerous ways. The 'career politician' is the major problem. Term limits would go a long way to combat this, however, as the Rodent above me stated, the only folks that CAN implement this change, are the very folks that this change would be attempting to reign in. So, highly unlikely it will ever happen. I don't see revolution as a viable option either. Americans have become too fat, dumb, and happy to want to expend the effort to actually DO something about it. Seems we would much rather blame it all on the 'other' party, rather than recognize that the problem is ALL OF THEM. Of course, this will eventually become a self-correcting problem. We can only follow this course for so long, before it becomes untenable. It's already unsustainable...... we will reach a point that we won't be able to borrow any more money, as we won't even be able to afford the interest payments on our burgeoning debt. Unfortunately, that'll take a major bite out of the world economy..... We will crash, and take everyone else down the tubes with us.

Trump has reneged on virtually all of his positions that were out of line with the RNC agenda. It's true from China to use of public toilets by transexuals. Please set your stopwatches to see how long it takes him to start claiming same-sex marriage recognition is a "states rights issue", and otherwise arguing for selective enforcement of our 14th and 5th Amendments. We have our own pathetic little Hitler here. Trump isn't the problem though. The whole system is. If you think everything is hunky dory, and the voters will have their way, I would point out that that has been proven time and again NOT to be the case. Yes. We are indeed doomed. We are going to spend ourselves right into bankruptcy/economic collapse, and then the real fun begins.

The media is just as divided as the country, one side will wholeheartedly support the idea, the other side will decry it as the ravings of a lunatic. (simply because of who is suggesting it.....) I see the media as a major part of the problem at this point. They aren't interesting in reporting NEWS, they are more interested in putting forward their VIEW of the news.... There aren't any real reporters any more. "Journalistic Integrity" doesn't exist.