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.
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.
Look how he unites the American people.
What a hero.
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.
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."
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'
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.
1200 people died when Katrina struck NOLA. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese lost their homes in the Wuhan floods of 2016. Government inaction has consequences. Sitting back in an easy chair watching Fox News and being a dumbass has consequences.
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.
>"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."
Don't try to use logic or reason here with any topic in which the word "Trump" is injected. It apparently doesn't work...
But Trump did do exactly what he promised the voters in his election campaign promises. Had he not, then the same people would be complaining that he was a liar or didn't do what he said he would do.
I don't like Trump, nor some of what he does, but the alternative was not any better (just in different ways). I think South Park put it the best- we had a choice between a turd sandwich or a giant douche.
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.
.....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. :)
You mean all those urbanite hipster coal miners and oil rig workers? Right, they'll move to a city where they can still go down the local coal mine after doing some shopping at the Whole Foods across the street.
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?
The president doesn't have to send treaties to the senate for ratification if he already has the statutory authority to execute them. Status of forces agreements are the very definition of a treaty, when was the last time Congress ratified one of those? I'm not aware they've EVER ratified one. The president already has the authority to make these treaties as he's commander in chief and it's within his authority to enforce the treaty.
Here's a history lesson for you, Since WWII the Senate ratifies less than 5% of treaties signed by our government and it's perfectly legal and constitutional. I know facts get in they way of a good hyperbolic argument without factual basis. I'm sorry, maybe you can find something else completely wrong to get mad about, I'm sure it won't be hard given your lack of education.
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.
Yeah big cities get huge farming subsidies.
Sufficiently advanced pragmatism is indistinguishable from hypocrisy.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
>"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."
Don't try to use logic or reason here with any topic in which the word "Trump" is injected. It apparently doesn't work...
Agreed.
But Trump did do exactly what he promised the voters in his election campaign promises.
Disagree. Almost everything he promised on day one hasn't even been done yet - 100+ days out.
Had he not, then the same people would be complaining that he was a liar or didn't do what he said he would do.
If you actually look at the previous link or probably find any other metric, compare by numbers with Hillary or *any* other president (potential or not), you find the difference astounding. The man is, by all unbiased metrics, the biggest liar we've ever seen at this level, by (very) far.
I don't like Trump, nor some of what he does, but the alternative was not any better (just in different ways). I think South Park put it the best- we had a choice between a turd sandwich or a giant douche.
Hillary was attacked by the right for decades, Russia added a ton more propaganda to make the country believe in crazy conspiracy theories. Pizzagate is not a thing. The FBI said her crimes were piddly and would be laughed out of court. You can't compare running her own email server to the possibility of perjury, espionage, and treason that the current Administration is under investigation for. The current topic of Paris agreement is an economic no-brainer. Those are oil & gas companies saying we should go forward with it because there is money to be made in leading the world in technology. If you believe the scientists, this is a huge moral issue with millions of lives at stake. Secretary of Defense James Mattis sees climate change as a national security threat. This choice is a ridonculous one, and you can't compare this Administration to the boringness of what Clinton's would have been.
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 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.
The Treaty obligates US to spend Taxpayer funds on foreign nations. That requires not only Senate ratification but Congressional action as well. Yes the President can make Executive Agreements with foreign nations as part of his duties and they make many such agreements, but this far exceeded his authority to agree to and not submit it for Senate Ratification.
And try to learn how to make a logical, fact based argument without resorting to ad-hominem attacks. Only a fool assumes that someone has less of an education just because he disagrees with them.
President Obama did not submit it, so it had no legal bearing within the US. Which would have shortly resulted in the world whining that we were not meeting our 'obligation' to give them free money. But without Senate Ratification and congress to actually fund the monies, not a cent would be spent.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
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.
If you are really confused about this, you could try reading the history of the US Constitution. Specifically focus on the "Great Compromise". Without it we wouldn't have a country at all.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Well if Trump ever accomplishes anything then at least we'll have something to compare to.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
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!
Make the responsibility local and hence much more accountable.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
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
How can you provide actual evidence when the accord's not passed Anon? Can only provide the opinions of several studies and the validity of their expertise since I'm not an economist. Plenty of anecdotal stories out their if you weren't a complete moron to not have already looked that information up for yourself. I'll provide just one link for you though (just in case you are a moron). :)
http://www.uspa24.com/bericht-...
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.
Right. But Trump's move takes it off the table should a change in majority occur in the next election cycle.
Have gnu, will travel.
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
I treat people with UIDs above ~2000000 as suspiciously as ACs. Above 2 or 3 mil, it's mostly shills and sheltered, intellectually useless children from 4chan.
As someone posted yesterday, you need 50% of the house to impeach, and 67% of the senate to remove. Not likely to happen, even if the Dems win both houses in 2016
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.
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...
I know how the Electoral College works. I've considered it a bad idea for quite a few decades now.
Rural areas receive lots of Federal and State money. Roads aren't cheap. Neither is running electricity and phone lines all over the place. They tend to be poorer than the urban areas, so Federal and State money for education tends to matter more to them. Overall, urban areas tend to support the rural ones financially.
Drug tests on welfare recipients show that very few of them do illegal drugs, and so the drug tests are largely a waste of money.
People in rural areas tend not to understand the challenges of urban areas (and vice versa), and a lot of the cultural differences are because of different circumstances. From my point of view, people in rural areas like to stick their noses into other people's business. It's not their business what other people's religion is. Unless they're thinking of having sex with someone, that person's gender and sexual orientation are not their business.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's hard to cancel coal plants once they're already built. Their priorities are changing. Nor do I care whether they're moving from coal to non-fossil-fuel plants because of the treaty or because they didn't want the pollution or whatever. Diminishing the role of coal in producing electricity is good for a large number of reasons.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We don't have to have ratification to appropriate money.
A treaty that is ratified by the Senate is part of the law of the land, and we still aren't all that great at complying with them. Congress and the President can pass laws that conform to a treaty without ratification.
Of course, Congress had no part of this, so Trump is legally justified in reversing what Obama did. Whether it's a good idea is another question.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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
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.
If climate change lacks intelligent, rational debate, is that because of the scientists and their evidence, or the deniers and their partisan hysteria?
You clearly don't understand what a strawman is. Either that or you've never been on the receiving end of a frothing, vituperating, gesticulating climate-change believer. Perhaps both. Although you're unlikely to believe it, anyone daring to question whether the proposed climate "solution" is really the best and only answer is a fantastic way to bring out every left-leaning wacko, kook, nutcase, and social justice warrior, all eager to scream, condescend, insult, belittle, and in general be obnoxious asses to the nth degree. They don't reason. They don't seek to convince or inform. The very act of not taking their every word and whim as absolutist gospel is apostasy in their eyes.
Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, there are large numbers of people who do not take this "settled science" argument to heart simply because all the scientists in the room nod up and down at the same time. Science isn't infallible and there have been numerous instances where its prophetic predictions have not only been wrong but absurdly wrong. True scientists welcome debate, welcome questioning, and eagerly seek out discussion on the subject. Yet today's climate warriors abhor all of that. We're told to not question the orthodoxy, that if you don't take their word for it simply because a bunch of them are saying the same thing then you're an idiot, and that their solution is the only solution and anyone suggesting otherwise needs to be shouted down, protested, vilified, threatened...whatever it takes short of engaging in actual, logical, reasoned debate.
Deniers? No. Simply people who want to be convinced before committing to huge lifestyle alterations. But you guys don't want to do any convincing. You say "we did all the research, wrote the reports, reviewed ourselves, judged ourselves, published ourselves, policed ourselves, and patted ourselves on the back so you need to trust us and not question a thing we say or you're a 'denier'." Sorry but it doesn't work that way. We're not flat-earthers. We simply believe in the scientific method where incredible claims require incredible evidence from non-partisan, non-political sources who have nothing to gain or lose based on the outcome of the research. The CPP is so overtly political as to be untrustable, yet its data are constantly used to prove every assertion you try shoving down our throats. Is it any wonder there is resistance to it?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Did you just cite Media Matters? Please go away left wing nut job.
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.
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
Of course not. I'm sure they know nothing about the really bad agreement.
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.