All I give a damn about is if he can do the job. If they have six toes, slightly green hair, are 3 feet, have a 2 inch tail, a scratchy high pitched voice, whatever, I hope people can put those things far down on their priorities. Defining a job-well-done, however, is of course relative to people's given standards.

In the end, because I'm not sure how legitimately baffled you are, it's not just a relationship with an older woman. She's 64 and he's 39 - 25 years older, it's a relationship with a much older woman, so I have no problems with people genuinely being confused. And yes, people's outward behaviors and decisions do have a reflection inwards, something I consider obvious at this stage in my life...

The problem though is that we don't know what that outward persona is reflecting. And so I ask people of all political backgrounds not to pass judgement on the things they can't speculate about, and rather pass it on the things that are in clear daylight that the candidates themselves are already willing to admit to; specific policy decisions, directions, motives, successes, failures, etc.

To be more specific society generally finds it normative for a man to date a younger woman, somewhat a sign of strength that they can mate/attract a more fertile and beautiful partner. The opposite would imply weakness in that area as a man, which would call into question their strength as person in general. Who knows, it may very well be a weakness, or it may be a strength...or both; his mental ability to fight off society's constant judgement, his flexibility in ways of thinking about situations, his committment to follow through on a long-term goal, a careless attitude towards a reproductive relationship, blindness to better potential opportunities, etc. I and others should be smart enough to know that it could imply just as many strengths as weaknesses, but that we will never know which ones are actually true and false.

I'll add one small thing to this as an American.

Why do we have to be #1 in everything? Why does the world, and our people, always expect us to be the leader in every given situation? It's always felt like an unrealistic burden. If China wants to be the leader on this then go ahead, I wish them luck! They'll create energy-safe/efficient technologies and then can capitalize off it (I just hope they don't cry wolf and respect Karma when people start stealing their technologies with no regard to their patents).

...Some of my fellow "citizens" will says things like "oh my gosh! America is #22 on Math/Science scores worldwide?! Japan and Denmark are head!??!" Good for Japan and Denmark! (ficticious examples)

America doesn't need to be #1 in everything, but they've always been one of the most modern, civilised and educated countries, so of course people want to keep it like that.

It's not just the US by the way, but in a lot of countries. Here in Belgium, we also want to be at least in the top 10 for a lot of things. For example, last week I read a news article about the global raking of gay rights. It said that we could do more to improve gay rights, since we went from the 2nd to the 4th place.

That's exactly the rhetoric I'm talking about, just emphasizing the point even though I see you've acknowledged it.

America is wealthy but a lot of it is because we've set our Capitalistic standards higher than most countries, and you know what? - That creates problems like inequality (income, socially, etc.) weakened traditions(religion taking a backseat), dilutted family structure, etc... things that other countries don't have to deal with. So we are #1 in some things only at the cost of not being #1 in other things. If people akcnowledged this they would have a less idealistic view of America and therefore less idealistic standards that make people freak out when we don't pay 100 Billion for the Paris Accord - we're 15-20 Trillion in debt last I checked.

Trump is excerting a pattern of behavior that emphasizes this as it relates to all his international decisions. The idea that America should nto be viewed as the world leader. And it's clear he wants other countries to follow suit. Every country is in so much debt that it has become acceptable to be in debt while still funding extraneous projects.

Tha Paris decision emphasizes all this ontop of the OP - setting up America as someone who will not be flexible on the more dangerous matters with North Korea and Russia.

Where is the $100 billion coming from?  Is it like 2.5-4 billion per year over the whole expected lifetime of the Paris Agreement?  $100 billion over 30 years is chump change to the USA, and even more chump change compared to the impact of rising sea levels on premium coastal real estate (and entire coastal cities). 

Projects related to reducing global cimate change can't really be called "extraneous" to nations that exist on this planet IMO.  I believe all the signatories to the Paris Agreement do. 

I wish they had just called it the Pittsburgh Agreement, and then Trump would have stayed in. 

Okay, you're right, it's $100 billion a year by 2020.  No, you're wrong, it's not $100 billion a year from the USA.  It's, from what I now understand, a goal of $100 billion a year collectively from many of the developed world signatories.  For instance, as of a recent story by the Washington Post, the U.S. had pledged about 3 of about 10 billion dollars worth to the green fund, of which we have actually paid one billion.  And I doubt we would end up paying 30% of the ramped-up pledges even under a pro-Paris-Agreement administration; we have every right to call on others to put in as well.  If this information I got is bogus, please do let me know. 

I think it's fair to say that we don't have one hundred percent certainty of exactly to what degree humanity has affected the environment to cause the current warming and how much impact the warming will have.  But I also think it's very wrong to say that we have no idea how much humanity has done so nor how bad it will be.  There's a broad scientific consensus, evolving on the details but pretty clear on the general picture being painted.  Warming climate, rising seas, less ice, more extreme weather, etc.  How much and how fast is water expected to rise?  They can tell you a probable range, but not nail it down to a certainty.  Is it enough to act on?  I think so. 

I'm curious what you meant by "scientifically sure". 

There are different articles saying different things (Hey if it's this hard validate specific details maybe people of all opinionated backgrounds should not rush to judgement so fast) but this one here seems to indicate that of the legit 100-billion pledge from theUS(this I was right on) there is a minimum of 6 billion promised of which we have supplied 3 billion so far. We're both off but still right, I can celebrate over that. (again this is how society has get to the bottom of things without killing eachother)

"Scientifically sure" means 100 percent certainty. It's just the innate standards set upon by the discipline. They and others should then abide by it if they wish to use the those standards as any part of their supporting argument. Climate Change is scientifically sound. The details we've repeated here stemming from it are not, but I agree that there is a less blurry picture that is evolving over time as we garner more and mroe details, data, theories, etc...some of which, like "planetary weather", may or may not support the conclusions we expect(Earth going through cycles). 

We're not clueless on the situation, but science doesn't have murky standards, we can't "kind of" think we know things when money and legislation are on the line. You won't find any scientific facts that show an estimate of how much human pollution contributes to weather changes - it's not there, there' no scientists saying "we think 50%, 75%, 25%" no one is saying that with any charts, graphs, nothing specific. We just don't know - it's a tough experiment to pull off, I don't blame them, but it doesn't matter. We understand greenhouse gases, what carbon emissions do. We dont' know, due to lack of control variables, what the current world would be like without those factors. Then let's say we knew, we don't know how effective proposals to reverse or slow down the process could work. I could go on, but science is only moving forward as we speak.

Ideal data could eve suggest it would be more financially efficient to focus resources on planetary migration rather than saving this planet, idk, no one knows though.

 

The last thing I want to add is that people are afraid to explore this side of the issue(the one I'm defending) because for years it was pathetically advocated by politicians and dumbass pundits who literally didn't even believe in fossils and science in general. This side of the issue has an image/reputation problem. But you can't judge a book by its cover.

The US has continued to decrease its emissions and has increased the amount of clean energy development and use. That'll continue whether or not we're donating $100b for zero US benefit. (there's some debate on how many billions will actually be given, but regardless, we shouldn't be responsible for that anyways)

Thank you for not only your civility but also your willingness to engage in discourse!  But I have to say I think you may have misread the article you cited. 

You said, "of the legit 100-billion pledge from theUS(this I was right on) there is a minimum of 6 billion promised of which we have supplied 3 billion so far."

The article said, "Grammatically speaking, “billions and billions and billions of dollars” is a minimum of $6 billion. As the New York Times reported Thursday, the U.S. has promised to supply up to $3 billion in aid for developing nations by 2020 to help them meet their emissions-cutting goals. That aid is part of a collective pool called the Green Climate Fund, as Trump says, which is administered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, according to the Paris Agreement. While $3 billion may sound like a lot of money to most people, for the United States government, which took in some $16.5 trillion in GDP last year, it’s a pretty paltry sum. And it isn’t even an annual contribution. As of May, the U.S. has kicked in a third of its $3 billion pledge to the fund, according to the Washington Post."

So as I read that article, the "$6 billion" is merely what would be grammatically necessary in the quote that President Trump provided.  "billions" is a minimum of 2 billion, so "billions and billions and billions" = 2 x 3 = 6 billion.  The actual amount the US has pledged, it says, is $3 billion, and it has paid $1 billion of that.  (Contrary to what you said, that we have "supplied" the entire $3 billion.)  I suspect Slate got that $1 billion number from the same Washington Post article I read. 

As for the $100 billion, even Donald Trump himself said that it's not the United States alone.  This is from the quote in that article of the President's speech:  "the so-called Green Climate Fund—nice name—which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments."  He does conflate "developed countries" and "America's existing [obligations]" a bit, but I think you'll agree that he didn't mean that each and every country in the agreement has to individually send $100 billion? 

Wikipedia says that the Green Climate Fund "has set itself a goal of raising $100 billion a year by 2020", which would mean collectively among all the donor countries.  Honest question:  is there a different $100 billion that I failed to notice in that article?  The only other 100 I noticed was 100 Million in U.S. aid to India. 

As for the science, I don't think it's as uncertain as you think, nor is 100% certainty on every single aspect necessary to take action.  If for instance, we had 98% certainty of what the problem was and 95% certainty that taking a certain action would have from X to Z amount of positive impact, most likely Y amount plus or minus W, then surely it would make sense to at least begin the process of putting the slow gears of civilization in action while we continued to check whether this was the correct course?  But, to be honest, such a wide-ranging topic as "the level of certainty in global climate change science" should be its own thread, at least. 

Technically speaking, we can't even be 100% sure that aliens haven't blown up the Sun.  It's about eight light-minutes away, after all.