Slashdot Mirror
61 Mayors Commit To Adopt, Honor and Uphold Paris Climate Accord After US Pulls Out (curbed.com)
After President Trump announced his intent to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, 61 mayors across the country have pledged to adopt the historic agreement themselves. The group of mayors, who represent 36 million Americans and some of the largest U.S. cities, outlined a plan to align with the other 194 nations that adopted the accord. From a statement provided by the climate mayors: We will continue to lead. We are increasing investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. We will buy and create more demand for electric cars and trucks. We will increase our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create a clean energy economy, and stand for environmental justice. And if the President wants to break the promises made to our allies enshrined in the historic Paris Agreement, we'll build and strengthen relationships around the world to protect the planet from devastating climate risks. The world cannot wait -- and neither will we.
I'm in Alabama and we follow the RULE OF LAW.
Now how are you guys going to go about that money transfers that the former persident agreed to? $100B a year, if I remember correctly. The world is waiting.
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
I have seen this more and more since Trump took office. Trump dismantles EPA's public protections. Local governments agree to pick up the slack. If this is going to be Trump's trend, then why should we be paying as much FEDERAL tax, when it's the STATE or CITY that is giving us all these services.
Here is the real story and the eventual history that will be Trump's: Destruction of the US global power and influence, and fanning the flames of the sub-national groups that will replace nations as a whole. The fall of the US leadership will coincide with the fall of the US as a functioning nation, but rather than subsuming into a failed state like Somalia and Yemen, its best cities will rise into global roles. Consider this Greek history in reverse, with city-states becoming the real holders of power.
Or we'd hold a special election and remove his 4ss from office if he'd do something against the people like that.
THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP for giving the USA a fair shot at being exceptional again!!
Look how he unites the American people.
What a hero.
Major cities need electoral votes. Fuck rural assholes who fuck shit up. Fuck subsidizing their tiny ignorant towns with my money. Ide rather give welfare to a black crackhead downtown than a racist methhead in bumfuckistan. Signed, white guy born in Green Bay.
but we're going to figure-out a way to pay the billions the accord requires? Or, do something about China that already produces twice the CO2 as the US and Europe combined, but isn't bound by limits in the accord until 2030? Sad waste of effort.
What part of this do you think violates Article II? They're not talking about joining into a treaty, only abiding by it.
It's funny, but when the Right wants to limit black voters or take away some woman's rights to birth control, it's all about the 10th Amendment and "states' rights", but when states want to do something that Donald Trump doesn't like, they forget everything about federalism and insist on a strong centralized government.
I don't mind hypocrites, as long as they're honest about it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
C ya.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The Left world-wide are calling Trump a "murderer" over this. Even ACLU chimed in with a bizarre accusation, that the decision is somehow racist...
The melt-down of these guys continues to be as entertaining as it was on November 9th last year...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Long gone.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And when the left wants to smoke weed, they suddenly remember states' rights and the 10th Amendment, but when they don't like what the local board of education is doing or don't like that people are allowed to own and carry firearms, that memory fades into a cloud of pipe smoke.
Both sides do plenty of picking and choosing about when and where they respect the rights of states. Conservatives tend to more frequently side with states' rights over the Federal government because that fits with their fundamental principles, but obviously isn't applied in all cases. Let's be honest about the fact that nobody is 100% consistent with their principles in all cases, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out hypocrisy. Just don't get too holier-than-thou about it.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Trump doesn't care and neither do Ryan nor McConnell. We own the issue on the local level. Let's get to work crafting the laws and negotiating with other countries.
How does the right want to block black voters? You mean the same ID cards the left wants you to have for everything else?
Well, time to vote them out then!
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Hahahahahahaha!
yak yak yak. Cities are chartered by there respective state constitutions and must abide by the laws of the State.
These liberals are out to get us and they won't stop until we are on the cross.
Can I get an AMEN brothers!
A mayor has no more power to enforce emissions than does the average citizen... about the most they can do is refuse to give out permits to companies which want to open new factories or the likes... and they'll just go someplace else.
*Collapses*
.....these mayors rule, they too will be without a job. The Paris accord is a farce for a global agenda and would end our sovereignty. This accord would do little to help the climate. Good that President Trump nixed this farce. :)
If "rights to birth control" means all tax payers need to pay for it then yeah fuck that.
If "limit black voters" means asking for a photo ID at voting time, like they do in 90% of the countries on earth including the poorest ones, then yeah I guess fuck 'em.
The left is just dishonest and thinks everyone is stupid. Call your shit what it is. If it's "tax payer subsidized birth control" then just say that. Stop with your "access" bullshit.
Funny how voter ID is not racist in places like Mexico where I lived for 20 years btw.
is like calling the people running Dice Holdings, mediocrities.
That's accurate, but somehow it doesn't seem sufficiently emphatic to describe the situation.
Congress never ratified the Paris Agreement. In fact, Obama never sent it to Congress for ratification. there is nothing to "withdraw" from...we were never in it.
And if the President wants to break the promises made to our allies enshrined in the historic Paris Agreement
Trump never made the promises, and Obama didn't have the authority to make them on behalf of everyone all on his own.
Folks keep overlooking the fact that the Paris accord was never ratified as a treaty. There was a handshake between the executive branch and other countries that they would follow the accord. The reality is that the US was never legally committed to the agreement as the Senate never ratified the accord.
Now how are you guys going to go about that money transfers that the former persident agreed to? $100B a year, if I remember correctly. The world is waiting.
Some questions:
That last one - making an end run around the democratic process, taking away the peoples' voice - seems especially troubling.
The same could be said of the right, states rights aren't important when it comes to sanctuary cities, abortion or anything else. States rights is false flag by the republican party, they believe in it less than the democrats do they just lie about it. Unfortunately their own voters are stupid enough to believe them while they try to take states rights away and dramatically expand federal power.
Go check again, the Federal government actually has minimal oversight over schools, healthcare or welfare.
So you're saying that:
"No child left behind" is optional,
"Common core" is just a recommendation,
I don't have to have health insurance if I don't want it, and
the government doesn't set my SSA retirement benefits?
Is that what you're saying?
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
Me and everyone I know on the left is pro-weed. Maybe it's anecdotal, but I don't see any empirical numbers you're putting up.
All the hard-core liberal mayors are into this alternative Federal policy stuff, where the Feds do (or don't do) X and the mayors and city councils decide to do contrary policy Y. I think the whole sanctuary city movement started a lot of it and Trump's election has certainly accelerated it.
Some of the time it's sensible, regional policy making the Feds shouldn't have been doing anyway or that cities or states should be doing.
But an awful lot of it seems like empty grandstanding on areas like diplomacy, foreign relations (including immigration) and economic policies that are just way out of scale, especially for a municipal government. I remember in the 1980s when cities would declare themselves a nuclear free zone, as if deciding to be a nuclear power was a municipal public safety question or maybe that they had local autonomy from the military.
It's mostly preposterous and the economic stuff especially seems like it is toothless if you can cross into a suburb and avoid the requirements. California and maybe Texas have the unique combinations of geography and size to dictate some of these things and make it work, Minneapolis, not so much.
I want streets without holes, garbage pickup, potable water and public safety. Master those, and maybe I'll be receptive to more grandiose policy ambitions. But usually the more grandiose the policy, the more likely they're failing at the basic tasks.
This does violate article 2. Trump pulled the US out of the treaty and these frauds are subverting the president by putting us back in it.
If "rights to birth control" means all tax payers need to pay for it then yeah fuck that.
Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor weren't suing over Medicaid or Medicare.
It was all about private insurers.
That said, you are paying more f the babies born because you don't want birth control covered.
If "limit black voters" means asking for a photo ID at voting time, like they do in 90% of the countries on earth including the poorest ones, then yeah I guess fuck 'em.
I hope 90% ff hose countries didn't have their majoity party invesigate which ID that minorty races tendto lack access to, or shut down dmv offices, or the like.
Which ID cards does the left want you to have that prevent you from voting?
...that these virtue-signaling-MORONIC mayors are giving away. They can send all of their money to China and India to help them pollute the planet even faster. They better not touch my tax-money. The deal Obama fucked us all over with would have transferred our money to China, India, and others while crippling our economy. So FUCK him for that stupid deal. I regret voting for his globalist-appeasement-ass. He was nothing more than a sock-puppet for the unelected-EU-fascists. I'm so glad Trump got elected instead of that criminal-globalist-CUNT and killed this deal. At least he can renegotiate it so that it doesn't fuck the US in the long run.
-A Concerned Ethinic-Non-binary-Individual ( so what I say matters more for anyone that stupidly practice being a SJW. )
So, what else is new, things change period. There is not a zero % chance that human influenced global warming is good thing... hot weather and rising oceans are more survivable than 2 miles of ice over your head. On the other hand, if technological humans can survive the next ice age, the reduction in population might be a good thing.
Of course a reduction in population due to it being too hot could be good in the long run too.
To hedge your bets, make sure the data-center that hosts your singularity server is not too far north, not too close to sea-level, and not too close to large masses of people likely to loot in times of crisis.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Sufficiently advanced pragmatism is indistinguishable from hypocrisy.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
...solve potholed roads, uncollected garbage, blown budgets and local crime before they progress to saving the world?
I'm sure they're all super-heroes and all, but their constituencies didn't elect them for their climate change policies.
Man, you need to update yourâ talking points, NCLB was repealed and replaced in 2015. And Commonâ Core is an initiative by state governments, so it shows the lack of Federal involvement. And ESSA, actually does forbid the Department of Education from considering adoption of Common Core, so yeah, minimal oversight.
Same go
With Jefferson "Ban the Demon Weed" in the AG's chair, all the fauxbitarians knuckled under, and joined with their paleo brethren in supporting the return of law and order run by a white man as God Intended.
Seriously, blaming Democrats for your vote to confirm a guy you claim you didn't want in office? No, Rand, you were always going to vote for Sessions, because you were never going to choose otherwise, and you need to be responsible for your own decisions.
He won't be. Fauxbitarians never take responsibility for their own decisions. Couldn't even man up to admit that Elizabeth Warren was knowingly and deliberately attacking the Represensible Senator from Alabama on his motives and character, that that was the whole point. Oh, but lil'Rand didn't think it was true, so nope, no reading something already part of the Senate Record for her.
And that's why it'll now become even more strongly a left-wing issue. Ol'Jeff can't wait to start be "Mr. Tough on Crime" and you can be sure the fauxbitarians will deny seeing a thing. They've been playing blind, deaf, and mute for the past few months already.
Another three years, and the roosters will come home, the bed will be lied in, and the whirlwind will be sowed.
Treaties require Senate ratification.
Despit all of this covfefe.
If you don't live in any of those cities, then it is not your business. The city spends its own citizen's taxes on the city.
If you live in one of those cities, you should be happy they try to poison you less by decreasing smog emitted by the city.
I have absolutely no idea, why would you have any problem with this. If you are a jobless coal miner go and enter a chinese reeducation programme (in case you want to work) for building solar panels/wind turbines OR vote for basic income (in case you don't want to work).
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
The agreement is just a cash grab for the Third World, as it does not obligate them to do anything but receive from developed nations.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Only it's not quite so simple. This particular issue cuts widely across party, ideological, religious, and other divides. What we have seen in the marijuana legalization movement is a true bottom-up, single-issue, grassroots, non-affiliated reform movement. It's a result of people analyzing the facts available to them and seeing that the laws don't match up. And there was no party or ideology guiding all these disparate individuals, over half the population now, to the same conclusion. Having followed this particular issue very closely, from without and within (knowing personally activists involved with NORML and MPP), I feel qualified to make this statement. You can either take my word for it, or look at the polls, or really any other hard data you can find. None of it contradicts what I am saying.
Doubtlessly, there will be political groups trying to claim the mantle of marijuana law reform. I have even heard, in the wild, things like "Trump is relaxing marijuana laws" when he is totally disinterested in the issue, and his appointees (Jeff Sessions) are taking direct action in the opposite direction. It should be noted that what Sessions is undoing is the Obama-era, states-rights policy of not enforcing federal marijuana laws in states that have voted to bypass them.
I'm sure you can cite examples of libertarians calling for marijuana law reform, because I've heard it too. But to say that it can be claimed as a "libertarian success" - how is that? Do most reform advocates identify as libertarian? Have libertarians campaigned anywhere in the same league as non-affiliated groups like NORML and MPP? Have elected libertarians swung the marijuana vote in any state legislature? Hell, do they even have any representatives in the legislatures in question?
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
Uhhh... what?
Libertarians generally support legalization true... but they're fairly anemic as a political force in the US. They generally just make a bit of noise during the GOP Primaries when some form of libertarian pops up and takes a chunk of the base with them for a few months.
Liberals also generally support legalization, and they're a much stronger political force.
Legal weed without Liberal support is just another fringe idea.
Legal weed without Libertarian support is still a plausible outcome.
I stole this Sig
No funny comments, except maybe a couple of the ones modded insightful. Not even a joke about destroying the planet as a possibly impeachable offense.
Winners: Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China. Losers: Rest of the world unless China saves the day.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Why does this involve Article 2? If the cities want to follow the accord guidelines, that's their choice. What pulling out of the Accord does is pull out of an obligation by the US Gov to fork over Trillions of US tax payer dollars to other countries.
If cities want to try to be cleaner that's fine, it's not a Constitutional battle at all. The real battle would be had The Prior administration tried to actually enforce any of the accord requirements as it was never sent to the Senate to be ratified. And as it involved the commitment of Tax funds that takes it outside the scope of what an Executive Agreement can include.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
In Colorado the left and the right supported legal weed. That is how it passed. The best arguments though for legal weed where from some of the groups on the right. The argument boiled down to locking up pot heads is a waste of money. None of them hurt anyone else, the vast majority held stable jobs and the cost of locking them up was bankrupting the state so even if the state made no money from tax revenue it would still be a huge net win. The state does actually get quite a lot in tax revenue from weed at this point.
Part of the reason I voted for legalization of weed was the conservative arguments. I have never used it in my life, I have no real intention to use it but I don't rule it out but spending money to lock up pot heads that mainly threaten bag of chips and pizzas while playing video games or considering how deep a flower is wastes a lot of money. All the money spent to arrest them, charge them, convict them, lock them up etc for someone that is not a threat to society is a gigantic waste. If we are going to spend that much money it needs to be worth it.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
No it doesn't. It just means they're going to hold themselves to higher standards than the federal government requires. If the population don't agree they can elect different mayors.
It's like how the UK didn't sign up to the EU working time directive, but the Ordnance Survey - a semi state body - opted into it, which was good for employees.
I'll agree to voter ID the second you make it 100% free and make elections a national holiday. But you won't because it's about disenfranchising people you don't want voting. If your concern was truly voter fraud you would agree with the 2 conditions I set without hesitation.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Sixty-one mayors who need to be challenged in their next election and removed from office.
Sixty-one mayors whose cities will be left behind when the growing economy passes them by.
Sixty-one mayors who probably never read the Paris Accords and don't understand what would happen to the US.
Sixty-one anti-American idiots. Green Day ought to write about them.
In 2013, the state House passed a bill that requires voters to show a photo ID issued by North Carolina, a passport, or a military identification card to begin in 2016. Out-of-state drivers licenses were to be accepted only if the voter registered within 90 days of the election, and university photo identification was not acceptable.[59] In July 2016, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision in a number of consolidated actions and struck down the law's photo ID requirement, finding that the new voting provisions targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision," and that the legislators had acted with clear "discriminatory intent" in enacting strict election rules, shaping the rules based on data they received about African-American registration and voting patterns.[60][61] On May 15, 2017, the law officially died when the US Supreme Court rejected efforts to review the Appeals Court ruling.[62].
The argument boiled down to locking up pot heads is a waste of money. None of them hurt anyone else, the vast majority held stable jobs and the cost of locking them up was bankrupting the state so even if the state made no money from tax revenue it would still be a huge net win.
Note that the authoritarian counter argument to that would be that you could make it revenue positive by fining them rather than incarcerating them. Give everyone caught for possession a choice of an on-the-spot $50 fine or a federal prosecution and money will flow into the state coffers. Plus, you can withdraw the offer of the fine from anyone who seems inconvenient to the state.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Taxing them brings even more revenue because you waste no time on enforcement at all and you have far fewer points of contact you have to deal with.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Oh bullshit, bullshit and I say thee thrice BULLSHIT.
You have to have ID to do fucking EVERYTHING in this country. Banking, driving,, buying stuff with a credit card. buying alcohol and cigarettes, claiming state/federal benefits, etc.
And with the Homeland Security Theater RealID initiative in full swing, most state drivers' licenses and state ID cards (for those who don't/can't drive) are now RealID compliant. So they're defacto federal ID.
Also, you generally need ID to vote ANYHOW. As you go into your polling place, they check your ID before handing you, what should, ostensibly be, YOUR ballot.
And, failing to find your ballot, they use that ID to register your use of the polling location BEFORE registering a blank ballot for you.
So stop with the bullcrap about about disenfranchisement.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I find that I needed to use my ID extremely rarely. Only a few times per year.
No ID needed to use a debit card
No ID needed to use an ATM
I don't buy alcohol or cigarettes since neither interest me
I HATE cars. I won't buy a car until they drive themselves.
I much prefer to live in a nice area that I can walk and ride a bike around.
If you register to vote by mail you also don't need to use ID. The voter fraud rate is so close to zero it is not worth worrying about. I have not seen a single study that shows otherwise so far. Voter disenfranchisement though is a major which is confirmed by many studies and the far more serious issue to address.
Election day should be a national holiday for people that want to vote in person.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Make the responsibility local and hence much more accountable.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Exactly, there is no penalty for a state or municipality to go above and beyond federal regs. In fact, its usually expected.
Where are they going to find the billions of dollars to pay to foreign governments, and will their constituents be ok with that?
After all, I'm not worrying about the agreements mandates on limiting emissions, since the US didn't join the Kyoto protocols, yet is still meeting the standards due to the switch from coal to natural gas for a large amount of power generation, in addition to adding wind and solar generation too.
Soooo, the only thing these Mayors really have to do is come up with case to hand to tin pot dictators in the third world so they can feel better about themselves....
It's a libertarian success because it calls to limit government power. One owns one's own body. To the extent that government power is limited it shows a libertarian influence (not necessarily Libertarian Party).
Abortion and gay rights have nothing to do with the left. Che and other socialists killed gay men as being part of the decadent bourgeoisie.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
"a true bottom-up, single-issue, grassroots, non-affiliated reform movement."
Even if it started that way, it's now big business capitalism in a slightly different form.
but when they don't like what the local board of education is doing or don't like that people are allowed to own and carry firearms, that memory fades into a cloud of pipe smoke.
Could you please elaborate "what the local board of education is doing"? That should clear up why should they don't like it.
Also, own and carry firearms are 2 different issues. To own firearms is one issue. To carry in public is another issue. Firearms are tools that should never be in irresponsible people's hands. It is a lot more touchy subject which involves both left and right, NOT PURE LEFT.
so there's a president that presides over nothing I guess. What's the point?! Too many chiefs? Not enough indians? Pick a leader to lead, and fire the leader that doesn't. This is just stupid.
Seattle is already over it's annual carbon limit with the fire started by the hobos under the West Seattle freeway bridge.
Have gnu, will travel.
All the weed legalization was from the ground up, with plenty of libertarian involvement. Liberal polititians were opposed to cannabis probibition ending, amd were given no choice.
It is fair to point out that liberals are way friendlier to pot than conservatives, certainly.
Yes, those mayors get to expand their local governments and enrich plenty of cronies.
Everyone knows that enriching cronies saves the world! It is the only solution!
Oh, and Mr. And Ms Homeowner, pay up in more taxes, those cronies won't fund themselves.
so how are these cities going to still "stay in" the Paris Treaty? Are they going to cut checks for billions to third world countries? Because there were no emissions targets in Paris - it was all about redistribution of wealth.
The Paris Agreement provided for more than voluntary reductions, but also for developed nations to send $100 billion in aid to developing nations for climate change mitigation--mitigation which is measured against self-established goals. Part of the agreement also provides for additional funds to be sent to address "loss and damage" suffered by various island states and developing nations for environmental damage caused by global warming.
Is it the intent of these mayors to spend city funds on helping foreign nations negatively impacted by global warming to help address the damage there?
...but abandoning the Paris accord doesn't prohibit any US individual, company, or state from pursuing greener policies. Not one.
The US federal government doesn't control its citizens behavior, to a large degree. In fact, what it does often is a negative driver of public action.
After all, the US is "officially" metric as well since the 1970s, see how much that official change made a difference?
-Styopa
I checked which cities are part of this.
The first thing these cities need to understand is that they are committing to distributing a MINIMUM of $100 billion dollars EVERY year to countries like North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Many of those cities do not even have a $100 billion budget, so I am wondering where they will get the money from. You could rob Bill Gates and pay for part of one year, but there is no sunset clause and there are only so many Bill Gates' that you can steal from.
Do not get me wrong, I am 100% for everyone at all levels to reduce or eliminate pollution. The Paris deal was not really going to make that happen as there were not comprehensive controls placed on how the receiving countries would spend the money. It will be like lottery proceeds going to schools. Sure, the schools are getting money from the lottery, but then, the money that was budgeted for the schools now goes somewhere else so there is not even a net win there.
I am weary of the insanity here folks. Most of you are not acting in good faith which really will cause pollution to get worse. If you are truly worried about climate change, start acting in good faith!
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Will these 61 Mayors be sending any money to third world countries out of their city budgets or **gasp** out of their own pockets? Or by 'support' did you only mean moral support not actual financial support?
You think any large business will put up with that? Oh, what will happen, is the government will "make allowances" (subsidies) to keep the businesses from relocating, and the burden will shift to the taxpayers of each city/state.
I'm going to steal that. I like that.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
Me and everyone I know on the left is pro-weed. Maybe it's anecdotal, but I don't see any empirical numbers you're putting up.
Your POV is anecdotal. From what I've seen, most lefties I know are pro-medical marijuana, not pro-recreational. A true pro-weed position has historically been a libertarian one. And that's the thing, we keep using simple minded labels to categorize issues that are just too fucking complex to pigeonhole like that.
Spot the irony in the strawman above.
If climate change lacks intelligent, rational debate, is that because of the scientists and their evidence, or the deniers and their partisan hysteria?
Typically, liberals complain about local school boards who want their specific religion to have a special place in the schools, from what I've seen. This is either official prayer or displays or replacing science with religious nonsense.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
On the flip side, conservatives need to understand economics better. There's little incentive to go green without more government intervention. Green policies have effects which are (a) global and (b) long term. Anything else which benefits local (self) or short term, is incredibly favorable from a business standpoint, and will be quite hard to resist. The solution is to sit down and all agree to do something -- no cheaters or free riders. Which we kind of just tried...
"... Trump's history spanning decades of idiocy, incompetence, narcissism, and sociopathic tendencies..."
Don't you just hate it when people are overly positive about Trump? What about the other faults? Don't forget his lying, ignorance, and inability to communicate well.
Honestly there are places I can't use my passport and places I can't use my drivers license. Really the whole thing is redundant and stupid.
once more into the breach
What part of this do you think violates Article II? They're not talking about joining into a treaty, only abiding by it.
They might get away with it as long as they aren't binding themselves. However, if Congress specifically considered and declined to adopt the treaty, then that negative aspect could rule the land as Congress' treaty power supersedes states' general lawmaking.
I don't know how it would turn out if they choose to bind themselves, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Bullshit. The last Democrat national politician to support legalization was Carter. He dropped it in his first year. Since then, nothing.
If anything, it's generational. Young republicans are as likely to support legalization as young democrats.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The feds simply can't afford to enforce pot laws. And they can't find jurors willing to convict in 99% of cases.
In CA, asshole DAs have been forced (by the voters) to get honest jobs after trying bullshit like you describe.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I keep hearing they're anemic, but much power on the Republican side was wielded by people who were libertarian-oriented in many of their viewpoints.
Many of the big columnists, Alan Greenspan, even Ronald Reagan (economically, though not on social issues) were such.
How? Insofar as many started as conservatives, conservatism is against the use of government power to reach into new areas without careful consideration.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Yes, but soon police are tackling and killing people who sell single cigarettes, not because it's a huge crime, but because it cuts into revenue of government-as-highway-robber.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Obama acted like a child king and just thought he could sign up the US for a treaty without getting a sign off from the Senate.
Basically Obama was trying to use an international treaty to write law in the US without consulting Congress at all. For some reason Obama and his legal scholars thought they could sign up the US for treaties as long as they didn't call it a "treaty" they didn't need to have the Senate's approval.
Many on the right including me are only objection to the Paris accords was that Obama was trying to skirt the Constitution and use a not-a-treaty-but-really-a-treaty to allow the executive branch to enforce it , all the while skipping past congress.
Glad it is gone.
Liberal Democrats even go up to 78%, which is the highest among any group.
Unfortunately, these don't compare directly liberals to libertarians. While I agree libertarian number should be higher, you can't say liberals aren't pro-weed, or "they never supported it, still don't".
Bullshit. The last Democrat national politician to support legalization was Carter. He dropped it in his first year. Since then, nothing.
And the last libertarian national politician to win office was the spaghetti monster. Sorry for the reality, but Dems are the only ones who will effectively fight your fight. It'd be in your interest to support your libertarian candidate until you find they don't have a chance to win, and at that point switch to the Dem. The last two Democratic Presidents famously smoked. The last Rep one? Never happened. The last Libertarian? Same.
You don't have to be a signatory to that type of agreement in order to abide by it. Let's say, for example, that the Paris accord includes a certain target for vehicle emissions. There's nothing in Article II that would prohibit a state from setting those same standards.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Here in Seattle, it wasn't the "libertarians" that brought the country's first full legalization of recreational Marijuana to life, it was our lefties.
Really, left is just a stupid moniker. It could mean something else in any particular demographic.
Abortion and gay rights have nothing to do with the left. Che and other socialists killed gay men as being part of the decadent bourgeoisie.
Certainly you're aware that the label of "left" as applied to members of the Democratic party isn't the "left" you're using there.
Libertarians didn't get weed legalized. Lots of Democrats under Democratic legislatures did. Sure legalization of weed is definitely a libertarian ideal- but you'll find many Democratic ideals are.
Disclaimer: I'm in Seattle. I helped legalize weed for recreational purposes here. You'll notice that Seattle has something in common with other states with very liberal weed laws. The color blue.
How is the weed legalization fight going in the states that vote for Libertarian candidates in large numbers? New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska, Oklahoma?
Perhaps there simply is No True Libertarian. Perhaps there simply is No True Democrat.
How does the national platform matter? Let's rattle off some states-
Washington, California, Oregon.
Some more...
New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska
Do I need to explain the significance of these to you? I'll give you a hint, when it comes right down to it, it was the Liberals that legalized weed. Not the Libertarians. But then we could argue all day about whether or not self-styled libertarians are anything but ashamed republicans.
conservatism is against the use of government power to reach into new areas without careful consideration.
LOL. You don't really believe that. Conservatism is against the use of government power in the same way that Liberalism is. They want to use it when it benefits them, and don't want it used when it annoys them.
No matter how you swing it, reaching into a woman's womb is a new area, and I've seen their careful consideration. Panels of men testifying to panels of men.
Sorry dude, you're speaking about a definition of a word that has no actual use in American politics.
County support for Colorado Amendment 64:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
2012 Election results by County for Colorado (I didn't do 2016... Because I'm not really sure that election was a liberal/conservative thing):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Sure some people on "the right" supported it. But they were the minority in their party, and in the end, voted pretty much along standard liberal/conservative elective county lines to reject legalization.
If "rights to birth control" means all tax payers need to pay for it then yeah fuck that.
Why not? We're all paying for your insulin shots and limp-dick pills. Women are 51% of the population, after all. You shitbags are a minority.
Generally speaking, a State is free to be stricter than the Federal Government, except in cases where Federal law prohibits it.
California's emissions standards, as an example.
Every states employment law as another.
That being said, I could see the fuckhead-in-chief threatening to go after (somehow) those states that decide to hold themselves to the higher set of standards.
During the Obama years, there were Republican-run cities and states that tried to enforce ACTUAL FEDERAL LAWS in trade and immigration - and progressives cheered as Obama took them into court and set all sorts of legal precedents that cities and states could not be inconflict with the whims of a sitting president on international matters.
Guess what?
Those precedents are in place now. Should Trump decide to slap them down, he is free to do it. These cities and states have no right to make their own international agreements, and to the extent they try to implement them in ways that conflict with neighboring states these become violations of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitiution. To the extent they get away with this crap, these local politicians are doing so at the mercy of the Trumpster.
Suck on it progressives: You were warned back when you were cheering as Obama did all that stuff... now you get to cry.
Our founders gave us SMALL, LIMITED government for many good reasons, just one of which is that it's not likely to be weaponized and used by one side of a philosophical arrgument to hammer the other side. Limited government would not have enabled Obama to hammer the right, but it would also have prevented Trump from hammering the left. Remember that when the Trump hammer falls on your sacred cows and maybe gradually you will realize we were all better off with limited government.
And when the left wants to smoke weed, they suddenly remember states' rights and the 10th Amendment, but when they don't like what the local board of education is doing or don't like that people are allowed to own and carry firearms, that memory fades into a cloud of pipe smoke.
Both sides do plenty of picking and choosing about when and where they respect the rights of states. Conservatives tend to more frequently side with states' rights over the Federal government because that fits with their fundamental principles, but obviously isn't applied in all cases. Let's be honest about the fact that nobody is 100% consistent with their principles in all cases, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out hypocrisy. Just don't get too holier-than-thou about it.
They vacillate on states' rights because no one really cares about states' rights, giving priority to one government level over another is hardly a fundamental political belief.
The US Federal Government's most common conflicts with the states come up when the Federal Government want's to introduce a new program or protect an ethnic or sexual minority, both things the right tends to oppose.
Therefore, the right tends to side with state's rights more often.
I stole this Sig
"61 Mayors Vow Support for International Bureaucracy"
"marijuana [...] is a true [...] grassroots [...] movement"
LOL! Not sure I'm ever going to get tired of the pot puns.
Keep in mind that espousing libertarian viewpoints nowadays will often get you called a leftie.
I think you're right. In the US at least, the right has moved so far over, libertarians are closer to the left than they are to the right. Being on the left in America feels centrist everywhere else.