Slashdot Mirror
The US Is Now the Only Country In the World To Reject the Paris Climate Deal
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Today, Syria announced that it would sign the Paris climate agreement -- a landmark deal that commits almost 200 countries to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming. With Nicaragua also joining the deal last month, the United States is now the only country in the world that opposes it. In June, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, unless it is renegotiated to be "fair" to the United States. But other countries in the deal, such as France, Germany, and Italy, said that's not possible. The Trump administration is also taking steps to roll back regulations passed under former President Barack Obama to achieve the emissions reduction goals set under the Paris deal. The U.S. is the second largest emitter of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the world after China. "With Syria's decision, the relentless commitment of the global community to deliver on Paris is more evident than ever," Paula Caballero, director of the climate change program at the World Resources Institute, told the Times. "The U.S.'s stark isolation should give Trump reason to reconsider his ill-advised announcement and join the rest of the world in tackling climate change."
"The US is the only country to not pay lip service to the Paris Claim Deal"
Maybe they should convince us why we should join and and then have it approved by Congress?
You never were the prize
Because we should. Noblesse Oblige.
If you don't "get" Noblesse Oblige, it's because you're a selfish, spoiled, cretin. If you have it good, it's probably because of the people around you. You owe them something back.
Yup. Decided to come back to slashdot to see if it really was as ignorant and stupid as I feared it had become.
Congratulations, you completely verified it.
Indeed, why should you sign on to an agreement that will save the planet? What has the planet ever done for YOU?
I'll be back in a year to check on you all again.
A deal for the climate? Sounds GOOD. We must be BAD for not accepting it. It must be the fault of BAD TRUMP.
^Complete train of thought this story is baiting for.
And, cost us up to nearly a hundred thousand times as much money as some other countries.
Then why hasn't Obamacare been repealed yet?
Trump is rejecting not because of what the Paris Climate deal is, he's rejecting it because it was his predecessor's doing.
This is the problem with a President going out and creating legislation through Executive Orders. The next President that comes along can just as easily undo them with the swipe of a pen. This isn't something new to Obama or Trump, it's been done by multiple Presidents. If you want a law to stay a law, have it ratified by the LEGISLATIVE branch, not the EXECUTIVE branch.
I know the majority of voters in America can't even name the 3 branches much less describe their function, but a simple civics test at the polling booth could easily weed out those that should be allowed a vote in our Democracy versus those that should be sent to an American Idol polling booth and would never know the difference.
As opposed to the selfish sanctimonious virtue signaling cretins like yourself?
So if everyone else jumped of a cliff would you follow?
u r dum
It benefits everyone. We all need to do our part to curtail climate change. The only reason Trump claims the Paris climate agreement isn't 'fair' is that it isn't as blatantly biased in favour of the US as many other international deals.
then we should follow their example, as they're clearly our moral superiors.
We are the only country to have a reality TV star with neither any political experience nor any experience in international relations as our president . We are the laughing stock of the civilized world.
He said he was going to release his tax returns. Also, that he would sue all those "lying" woman who accused him of harassment. And that he would never settle Trump U, because he was going to beat the whiny plaintiffs in court.
If it's a binding deal, it's a treaty and needed Senate ratification.
If it's not a binding deal, it's a useless turd.
Itâ(TM)s not symmetric. The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. Insulting individuals who take issue with that is just cruel marketing.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
If everyone else is getting raped, we need to get raped too.
Perhaps, his predecessor shouldn't have used his pen and phone to make bad decisions.
The human race can not control the planet. Never will!
So arguing who is on board and who is not, IS IRRELEVANT!
What we really need to do is to get in to space! Get off this rock.
Because the data suggests that if Donald Trump is against it, there is very nearly a 100% chance that it's the right thing to do.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I do not want to spoil the party but president can only ask parliament to repeal an act of law. So he is maybe lousy at doing acts of law but he is trying at least. It does not make him a better president of course but makes your argument rather silly.
because: peer pressure. How else are all good decisions made?
However the 96% of the worlds population outside the USA may decide buying US made goods is a bad thing for the environment.
Feel free to quit all the trade agreements you have, build as many walls as you like, there rest of the world will learn to carry on without you.
Its 100% your choice to leave.... HOWEVER its 100% OUR choice to let you back in and it will be on OUR terms, not yours.
US is rogue state.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Who seriously thinks that North Korea and Syria, or any other country like them, will actually DO what the accord entails? Yeah, not likely.
Yes, right, we are the 2nd largest CO2 emitter in the world, and we are martians here to destroy this planet. Saving this planet does not benefit us.
I'm not even sure it's marketing. At best, it's just ignorance of what the deal entailed for us, and what it committed us to. At worst, which seems to be the trend, it's just glossing over the facts deliberately to fit an agenda.
I had a sucky sig.
The question here is not whether you want to follow others jumping off a cliff. If there is a cliff, then everybody is going to jump, regardless of his opinion. If there is no cliff, then those who now warn about approaching it will first become silent and then be ridiculed a few decades later. If there is a cliff, then we'll see who's better off: Those who tried to stop approaching it, or those who prepared for a softer landing or some improvised flying device.
Ah, and if some supervulcano erupts, it might be we'll hit a high wall rather than a cliff.
https://www.investors.com/poli...
Because congress won't pass a bill that can get through the senate, and then to his desk.
I had a sucky sig.
First, the U.S. never officially signed on to the Paris Accord. That would require a treaty approved by Congress, and with Republicans in control, that's not going to happen, so, Hussein Obammy signed a voluntary, non-binding agreement. In reality, Der Trumpenfuhrer has announced that we are "withdrawing" from something that we were never actually part of in the first place. The "withdrawal" of the U.S., is in fact, much ado about nothing.
Second, the fact that all these other countries have signed on to the agreement is meaningless since it is completely unenforceable, just like all the various treaties that have been signed regarding chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, human rights, etc. If any of these countries fail to abide by the demands of the Paris Accord, what are you going to do about it? Exactly nothing, that's what.
If you think that any of these countries are going to do anything that is not in THEIR best interest, or if you think that none of them will ever cut corners in compliance, in order to get a competitive advantage, you are truly delusional.
If everyone is jumping off a cliff, chances are they do have a good reason to. There could be something substantially more terrifying on top of the cliff, for instance.
Because Trump wasn't running for congress, and for now he hasn't become a dictator.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Because the international religion of environmentalism demands it, obviously.
Also because it will be 0.2 degrees C cooler in the year 2100 if everything works out exactly as the agreement predicts and all nations meet their targets. So clearly the Paris agreement “saves the Earth”.
Don’t you want to “save the Earth”?
So lets get a few things out of the way:
In our atmosphere:
* The current CO2 levels are at 0.04%, or 400 ppm.
* The current O2 levels are at 20.9%, or 209,000 ppm.
Now some other information:
* Plants will die if the CO2 level fall below 150 ppm.
* The optimal amount of CO2 for plants is 2000 ppm.
The effective oxygen level at 18,000 feet is 10.5%, half of what it is at sea level. Those of you that have been to high altitudes know how hard it is to breath at that height. Imagine how the plants are doing at 1/5 of their optimal CO2 levels–and that is just at sea level.
It turns out that historically (in terms of millions of years), CO2 levels have been steadily declining. The theory of this decline is because mollusks and other abundant sea creatures have been storing carbon in shells. That carbon does not get released, but remains in those shells after the creature dies. We are now at 400 ppm. Once we get down to 150, all the plants will die off, and the people soon after.
The real problem is not too much CO2 in the atmosphere, it is too little. And how to reverse this trend of lowering CO2 levels?
Just to recap, America is the only western country without sane gun laws, universal health care, the most controlled by religious zealots and the only country in the world opposed to dealing with climate change. It's like Americans are actively trying to be the butt of the world's jokes. It would be funny too if they didn't also have nuclear weapons and an unhinged leader.
Jesus Christ Burma & Liberia! You're gonna ditch us on this?!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Really? The US? The only country needing to do anything?
There are more than a couple of countries, developed countries, that might have to do something first. All signatories have to do something eventually.
Of course you simply don't want to have to do anything, right? Damn right!
...the only country in the world with a spine.
It is in fact blatantly biased AGAINST the US and the west in general.
Total reduction of pollution (ie. industry) while China and India don't have to change a thing despite emitting 10 times the pollution as the US.
Look, the actual economic powerhouse cities and states that drive more than half of the US GDP are already meeting and exceeding the Paris Accords.
It's just the inefficient tax-subsidized states that aren't, which is why they aren't growing their GDP.
Renewables and efficient buildings and plants allow us to outcompete you buggy whip manufacturing denialists.
Cheaper, faster, better.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
There does not seem to be any significant discussion of potential human reactions on the climate change other than
(a) denying its existence
(b) trying to stop it at whatever the cost may be
That is really tragic. I'm pretty sure if the extremal positions where not that fixed for political reasons, it might well be possible to find better / more efficient approaches - such as international cpmtracts on how to adapt to the changing climate in ways that allow people to live and thrive under the new conditions - if necessary, in locations elsewhere on the planet than they currently are.
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
And why are not signing the agreement and fighting climate change mutually exclusive?
Ah, the usual bullshit justifications of the unsecintific denialst shill, piss off back to your coal mine ypu dumb cunt.
Land of the free and home of the brave! Jesusland 4evr!
... that are producing nearly a hundred thousand times less greenhouse gases.
No. But then I'm sure the Earth will be fine. The universe dies when I die.
You would think by now that they would learn something, but clearly not. Fortunately, they have the example of the United States, which they will never follow, but will give them many sleepless nights as their conscious, for the few who have one, will keep them up. As they rail with the sound and fury of idiocy unrestrained.
As a result of fracking we've greatly cut our CO2 emissions. We will meet the CO2 and particulate standards even without being a signatory to the Paris Climate Treaty.
I hope you realize that a large part of the Paris Climate Deal includes income transfer from the US to countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, Nigeria and that this will not help "the climate" in any way. It will enrich a few, impoverish many in the US and do NOTHING for the climate.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Political filth not only on the inside, but now on the outside.. How grand.
I don't see how you get "relentless commitment" out of "non-binding" "agreements".
Maybe it was not possible to renegotiate fairness aside (which arguably it is fair).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Well, I guess it's time to bomb the world. How dare they? And most terrorists come from there too.
If you think that any of these countries are going to do anything that is not in THEIR best interest, or if you think that none of them will ever cut corners in compliance, in order to get a competitive advantage, you are truly delusional.
They have already done what's in their best interest with the Paris Climate Accord. It's in every country's obvious interest to alleviate the negative consequences of man-induced global warming. Not hard to understand either, except morons, of course.
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
That relies on the false premise that the deal isn't "fair" to the US.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Obama rule by decree. Good. Trump rule by decree. Bad.
He's rejecting it because of what it is not. It is NOT a solution to global climate change. His predecessor is irrelevant, although it is convenient that he tried implementing a treaty commitment without going through the constitutional process required.
If the US is the only country asked to foot the bill for it, wouldn't it stand to reason that it would reject it? I never heard the reason for its rejection being that AGW is false. No one advocating its rejection said so. The only reason ever given was that the US was asked to pay for it. You wouldn't expect that those getting paid would reject it.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I do not want to spoil the party but president can only ask parliament to repeal an act of law.
What is "parliament"? Why would whatever that is listen to the US President?
Of course they do. The funnel for our money ends in their pockets.
You owe them something back.
You don't owe anyone anything you haven't agreed to owe.
If you don't "get" Noblesse Oblige, it's because you're a selfish, spoiled, cretin.
Not nearly (not even by a long shot) as much as if you are demanding Noblesse Oblige from others. Those demanding it are the true bona fide villains.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Congratulations! You are a confirmed villain.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
When we look back at people from the medieval period pissing and shitting in the street right outside their house we laugh at how dumb they could have been, in the future (if anyone's left alive) they will look back at us and laugh at how dumb we are for polluting and destroying the environment we live in.
You voted for him, it's your fault.
Or it could just be fun. In my experience, there's usually a large body of water below.
it is convenient that he tried implementing a treaty commitment without going through the constitutional process required.
No process was required, because no commitment was made.
Though, actually, most treaties that do involve commitments are made the same way. The president negotiates and signs a document which is essentially a personal commitment to get Congress to pass legislation implementing the terms. If Congress doesn't, then the US is in breach of the treaty terms, but the terms are structured to take this possibility into account, and so nothing happens. If Congress does act, then the treaty is in force.
This is called a "Congressional-Executive Treaty", and it's the second most common way that the US enters into treaties. The most common way is when the president signs a treaty which he has the authority to carry out, without involvement of Congress. This is called a "Sole Executive Treaty".
Senate-ratified treaties are rare, and have been rare for most of the country's existence. Obama did nothing unusual with the Climate Accord. He didn't have to go to Congress because the accord doesn't have any binding commitments.
...in bullshit meters per capita.
The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country.
The average American produces 17 tonnes of CO2 annually. The average Syrian produces less than two. Insisting that we should all make the same reduction is idiotic.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Stop with the income/wealth distribution baloney.
You think the US just gives out money and says "do what you want with it!"? Or are you so mentally deficient that you cant grasp that the money comes back to the US in the form of foreign contracts and purchases.
Because transitioning the USA's energy sources to renewables does benefit the USA?
Coal is dying, not because of "regulations", but because it is being out-competed by solar and wind. Why promote a dirty, polluting energy source that is dangerous to human life on earth over cheaper, non-polluting sources?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Oh ok. I didn't realize he was campaigning these policies for himself and not on the platform of the Republican party.
That totally absolves him of the responsibilities of doing the leg work to help get things done. And with a congress and senate that will work with him instead of against him at that.
You have any other tricks? The mental gymnastics here are spectacular. 11/10!
Still waiting for him to release his tax returns.....
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Blacks do better in warm weather with coalbal warming. The Paris climate accords are run by 32 degree illuminated masons who are trying to maintain white control of the world. They want to cool down the planet so dark skinned folks don't move in next door.
End white privilege. Say no to the Paris accords and green energy.
Itâ(TM)s not symmetric. The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. Insulting individuals who take issue with that is just cruel marketing.
The United States was the only country to make concrete promises. There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises. The US should reduce its pollution, but never enter into such a lop-sided "agreement".
Does anyone believe that a single policy will stop global climate change?
The Paris Climate Accord was a step in the right direction. If Trump wants to say he's taking a different step in that direction, fantastic. On the other hand, if he's saying that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy (or a normal fluctuation, or due to solar flares, etc.), that's another matter.
Ob XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1732/
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
"In 1846 Michigan became the first state in the Union, as well as the first English-speaking government in the world to abolish the death penalty."
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
No process was required, because no commitment was made.
A commitment to abide by the "accord" was made.
The most common way is when the president signs a treaty which he has the authority to carry out, without involvement of Congress. This is called a "Sole Executive Treaty".
US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2:
2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Treaties require the consent of the Senate with a two-thirds approval. This "Sole Executive Treaty" you speak of is not constitutional.
He didn't have to go to Congress because the accord doesn't have any binding commitments.
Then the broohaahaa over the US "backing out" of this accord is moot, since there were no binding commitments to begin with. We didn't have to do nothing, so saying we ain't gonna do nothing is ... well, seems like a rational statement to me. And all the states who are saying "we're going to abide by an agreement that doesn't require us to do anything" is pretty meaningless. I think the term is "virtue signaling."
Does anyone believe that a single policy will stop global climate change?
Does anyone believe that the colloquial English phrase "a solution to" always means "a complete and final, irrevocable, perfect solution to ..."? When something solves nothing, it is quite sufficient to dismiss it by saying that it is not a solution to whatever.
Also the only country to put a man on the moon.
Because the data suggests that if Donald Trump is against it, there is very nearly a 100% chance that it's the right thing to do.
Evidently you are a dope.
Try this:
Obama doing something good (by decree or otherwise) is good. Trump doing something bad, for no good reason apart from the fact that it is the opposite of what Obama did - is bad.
Then why hasn't Obamacare been repealed yet?
The President can't single-handedly repeal ObamaCare. Since it's a budget act, Congress must pass a bill which the Senate approves and hands to the President to ratify.
Enjoy your third-world shithole. You can't even power NY state without foreign aid.
Keeping global average temperatures from rising more than 2C this century does not benefit us? What are you, a camel?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
I'm not going to climb into a rabbit hole full of BS trying to argue that it's fair and/or to the US's benefit.
It's the exact same tactic denialists use, to obscure the obvious by getting lost in the details.
You should believe Climate Change is a threat because an overwhelming majority of scientists with relevant expertise believe it's a threat.
And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.
Before you start arguing the nuances of "benefits" and "fair" you need to explain why everyone else is getting it so wrong.
I stole this Sig
Trump didn't deny climate change as these media outlets would have you believe, not as it relates to the climate accord. He simply reversed the Obama era commitment to pay billions of US tax dollars unless the powers that be agreed to a renegotiation. They rejected it.
Obama ran an end run around congress and committed the US to billions every year. I read numerous articles talking about congresses' dissatisfaction to Obama committing the US to the accord without their consent. They were even looking for a way to defund the program.
https://www.washingtontimes.co...?
In the end, China (a country that pollutes twice as much as the US) is allowed to continue to 2050 and will receive money from the fund. India, which is also heavily polluting will also be allowed to continue and even increase their pollution while still receiving payment from the fund. The US is responsible for only a few percentage points more in pollution than the EU, yet the US would have to carry the largest burden. According to numerous sources the US has already met the goals set forth in the accord through renewable energies.
Some even considered the fund to be a massive wealth distribution program coming at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Nothing is keeping the other countries from stepping up their commitment in order to meet the shortfall cause by the US pulling out.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
... last year, so this news is the least of our goddam worries.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
If it results in removal of suburbia, creation of effective public transportation system, removal of the dependency on automobiles, removal of the crime, homeless and drug usage in the inner cities, it is worth it.
Everywhere else, except some areas in Africa inner cities are the safest, nicest, best places to live, go out, have fun and raise children. Not in US though. It is not an object of pride that most of the US cities are like African slums, the cost of heal care is exorbitant, the cost of housing is exorbitant the cost of education is exorbitant, the country has the highest percentage of the population in jail an it is still not enough to keep crime rates at bay.
I would disagree. The honorable thing is to keep Americans from being put in an unfair position. Trump tried to renegotiate but that attempt was rejected. We'd likely be a participant had they agreed to renegotiate.
Syria's commitment, though is momentarily noteworthy, is really just a matter of paperwork. They will monetarily benefit from the accord more than their commitment to reducing climate change.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
The better analogy would be "If everyone is hitting the brakes to avoid driving off a cliff, shouldn't you do the same?"
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
I have often wondered what the chicken littles would be screaming for if instead of global warming we were told that we were headed for global cooling (as we were in the 70's). Would the alarmists advocate for more CO2?
because you consume more than your 'fair' share and hence produce more waste plus you have had a 100 year head start on most nations.
What he is saying is 100% true and hence he should not be marked as a troll.
I think what people dislike is the part of his comment about fact fracking is benefiting us. It is. That's undeniable. However fracking causes other side effects, some of which are undeniably bad.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
So when Florida and the other Gulf of Mexico states get deluged by storm surges who are you going to blame then?
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
Parliament is the thing that low paid Russian trolls think Is not the thing that it actually is.
It's always fun to be called out by ignorant fuckwits who want to push an agenda, but the facts are not on their side:
https://www.technologyreview.c...
"The inflection point has already been reached in the West, and by 2021 solar will be cheaper than coal in China."
Yes, fracking has historically been the reason coal is going away, but renewable sources are now adding to that.
"Those milestones will surely lead to greater adoption of clean energy. And the report predicts that of the $10.2 trillion expected to be invested into power generation between now and 2040, 72 percent will be channeled into renewables."
So crawl back under your bridge and STFU.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Except, the government is actively trying to reduce/remove regulations on emissions. They didn't pull out of the agreement to reduce emissions on our own terms, they pulled out to not have to reduce emissions.
Explain how it is fair? Make sure to look at who bears the costs and consequences for not abiding to it. Keeping in mind that all other countries will point fingers at the US if they fail to meet their un-enforces obligations.
Well, most people's idea of "fair" is pretty subjective, but what makes you think signing on wouldn't benefit us?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.
Maybe the politicians and the religious aspect of politics sets others off, sometimes radically (now moreso than in the past), but it doesn't justify saying that pissing off the establishment and their supporters is a bad thing.
Frankly, aside from pissing off the establishment and their supporters I don't see him doing much wrong. He's not presidential? So be it. He pisses off his party and the democrats? So be it. The American people hired him to drain the swamp. That's going to piss a lot of people off.
Don't give me that shit about racism or treason or whatever. I've followed this from before the primaries. Trump wasn't a racist nor was he treasonous before the election and he isn't now. It is clear that the establishment (including the media) is attempting to run the presidency through extortion (ala, play ball or we'll impeach you).
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
The same way that literally every country in the world doesnt think its citizens can be trusted with free speech or the right to defend ones self?
I didn't realize he was campaigning these policies for himself and not on the platform of the Republican party.
Did you only just hear about Trump? He's about as Republican as Bernie was Democrat. He can't pass legislation - he can't even introduce it. I don't have to "absolve" him of anything.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Again, someone with mod points seems to be showing their agenda. Remember, mod points are for promoting good points. Modding down just highlights you and those you are modding against.
No matter how you look at it he's right. The amount that we'd reduce the temperature by is only a fraction of a degree and that's through continued effort for 80+ years.
The US, through renewable energies, has pretty much already met the goals that they would have agreed to with the accord. The only thing lacking is the money that the US would be paying other countries.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
As opposed to cynical cretins like yourself who deny the existence of virtue? I wonder whether you don't believe in virtue or whether you're just afraid that someone might be more virtuous than you.
Well, someone is. For example, honesty is a virtue.
So when Florida and the other Gulf of Mexico states get deluged by storm surges who are you going to blame then?
When is that going to happen? What evidence do you have that proves that this will even happen? I do want to mark my calendar though... I'll be right here waiting for that date and evidence.
What are the actual consequences? Other than someone has beat in to your head it's a bad thing?
Because transitioning the USA's energy sources to renewables does benefit the USA?
Coal is dying, not because of "regulations", but because it is being out-competed by solar and wind. Why promote a dirty, polluting energy source that is dangerous to human life on earth over cheaper, non-polluting sources?
Coal is dying because if coal doesn't die, the coal miners will.
That's what global warming is about.
Climate science is a very tight knit community. If you don't subscribe to the popular theory, you can't get in to a graduate or doctorate program. It's become a cult where dissent is not tolerated or accepted. It's easy to get consensus when you ensure that no one that disagrees can be credentialed.
Other countries have little to worry about. Most of the costs of the accord are put on the shoulders of the US. No one has to actually abide to the agreement. It's a worthless piece of paper that transfers wealth from the US to other countries and by a recent UN study, won't even accomplish its goals of every country actually abides by it. Why should the US pay for this?
Correct, your wars are about MAGA!!!!
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
Two degrees was a politically derived target.
And all the Paris pledges added together will avert 0.04 degrees of warming by their own calculation. (See Lomborg and MAGICC).
It is a big hoax, China says they will reduce carbon, by 2030 they MIGHT achieve a maximum rise. They are building coal plants like crazy, with like a thousand on order.
This is UN bureaucracy run amok.
Despite media hype to the contrary, there is no increase in severe weather. Like always we have storms. But there wasn't a hit of a big hurricane on US soil in 12 years before this year. The planet is greening with all the additional plant food (CO2), Warmer is better for people, in cold times people die and starve.
"Inner cities are safe" ... really?! Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, Newark ... to name just few that ate anything BUT safe. Oh, and if you hadn't noticed, these are all Communist/Socialist/Democrat-run metropolises with stringent (and soundly failing) gun control policies.
Yes, their "best interest" is to sign a document that allows them to receive money from the US to put towards emissions reductions. Money that will most likely go in the pockets of the despots and their families in those very corrupt countries.
You should believe Climate Change is a threat because an overwhelming majority of scientists with relevant expertise believe it's a threat.
Could you supply that list of scientists that have checked off yes or no to AGW? I keep hearing about the majority or 97%, but never have seen this running list of scientists that say yea or nay. I do not believe you have one or that this list actually exists, but if you plan to cite this fib please provide this one measure of evidence.
And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.
Before you start arguing the nuances of "benefits" and "fair" you need to explain why everyone else is getting it so wrong.
Free money baby!!! To the tune of 100 billion a year from the west. And by the west, I mean most of it will be funded by the US. Just like NATO and the UN... If you were a poor country set to receive millions or billions to "combat climate change", wouldn't you sign on too?
Bullshit. The US has the exact same right to determine its own targets as China & India, despite the US emitting far more than any other country (339,174 Mt total, nearly a third of the entire planet, compared to China's 105,915 Mt).
And the myth of emissions being linked to GDP went out the window in 2010, do try to keep up. The US itself proved that you can lower emissions while still growing your economy - efficiency gains, switching from coal to gas (or anything else), cracking down on methane leaks etc.
Remember the Kyoto protocol? Paris is Kyoto 2.0.
The originator this time around has expressed his views that the Paris agreement is not intended to benefit the environment, but is a wealth redistribution plan between the US and developing countries. This reasoning is why China and India have been against being reclassified as industrialized nations. Being called "developing" is a minor slight if they get a portion of the 100 billion dollars the US is expected to contribute throughout the lifetime of the Paris agreement.
It's all in the drafting papers hosted by the UN. Has been for years.
So when Florida and the other Gulf of Mexico states get deluged by storm surges who are you going to blame then?
The idiots who insist on living there despite the threat. There's plenty of time to move inland. So, they'd better hop to it!
but....jerbs!
And the Chinese have had a 4,000 - 5,000 year head start ... so what?
Not signing up for the obligations of nobility until I get the actual patent of nobility. And the US is forbidden from issuing such.
Trump is not a Democrat so he's gotta be wrong about absolutely everything.
He's also rich because he got lucky or something.
Atte. Average Democrat voter
"The average American produces 17 tonnes of CO2 annually"
Not at my house, we produce 17 tonnes of methane!
Not true, thanks to Trump being so ineffectual as a leader. In fact, Trump is the one nosediving.
Look at tonight's election results to see what American voters think of Donald Trump.
You are welcome on my lawn.
because it's already fair. The U.S. gets to pick and choose whatever they like and do under their own regulation to reduce emission. That's the Paris agreement. If they wish, they can do nothing.
There's nothing to renegotiate or even negotiate when it's already a buffet to pick whatever they like.
"The U.S.'s stark isolation should give Trump reason to reconsider his ill-advised announcement and join the rest of the world in tackling climate change."
Yeah, President Trump will change his position because of peer pressure...
We, as a country, can increase or decrease our nation's carbon footprint without signing the Paris Climate Accord.
Ken
Well, the main economic impact of climate change is going to be wealth redistribution. Climate change favors people whose assets are movable; basically if you maintain a diverse asset portfolio and rebalance it at least annually you'll actually make money coming and going. If your assets are fixed -- say a family farm -- or difficult to move -- say an unskilled laborer -- you may end up losing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The inner city is the best place to raise children? Now I know you're a lunatic.
If you're going to try to lie to someone to sell your agenda, the lie has to be believable.
captcha: addicts
"Before you start arguing the nuances of "benefits" and "fair" you need to explain why everyone else is getting it so wrong."
The problem lies in the old concept of "American Exceptionalism". The US is better than any other Country, and Americans are inherently Superior as a result. They can do no wrong, because their actions define what is right. Although not restricted to the American Republican Party, the Republicans do have the habit of regularly reminding the rest of the World of this concept, while noting the Republicans are the most Superior of all. That's why they deserve the Big Bucks. That's why they are the ones who deserve to wear American Flag lapel pins. That is why they can declare Science wrong when it goes against Republican Orthodoxy.
But their numbers are against them. Note that Trump only got the Vote of 19.3% of the US Population, and he lost the Popular Vote. But Republicans still consider this a Mandate, yet one more indication of their Manifest Destiny. They tend to be as bad at Math as they are at Science. And they still can't accept the fact that in two consecutive Fair Elections, a Black Man was voted President. The Math gets interesting there as well; more votes were cast for Democratic Congressional Candidates than Republican, yet most of the seats actually went to the Republican Candidates. Funny that.
Now Republicans get very odd indeed when it comes to "Climate Change". One of their continuing refrains are that the Scientists are all corrupt, that they have been bought off by shadowy figures, and a lot of money is being made by them under the table. They keep on repeating it without providing any proof... because there isn't any of course. But if it was actually true, why don't Republicans simply offer more money to these corrupt Scientists? Find 1000 disreputable Climate Scientists and offer them a million dollars each to change the Dialog. Chump change to Republicans.
But suppose they don't want any Dialog at all? For them, the Case is closed. There will be no more Discussion, no more Dialog. The US is out of the Paris Accords, and that is that. On to the next Deal.
Strangely enough, when I was much younger, I leaned Republican. A minimal efficient Government, and a chance, just a chance mind you, to Succeed. Government does what it has to do, and then gets out of the way. That is _not_ the Philosophy of the modern Republican Party. They lean more towards the Plutocratic end of an entrenched Oligarchy. Their Oligarchy. (Modern Libertarians are just plain silly; Republicans who smoke pot.)
The Paris Accords, as they stand, haven't a prayer of succeeding. But they are not carved in stone. They are a start, and as World Economics evolve, they too would evolve. But the US has to participate. They can object or not depending on current Politics to any part of it, but without US participation, the Accords will fail. Any other Country now has the equal right of withdrawing because they temporarily have a fucking idiot as a Leader. Their Oligarchs will reap the profit, and to hell with everybody else. It's the Republican Way.
Captcha; accorder
Thank G-d Almighty that the Deeply Flawed Trump (by accident?) stumbled on the right response to this ridiculous kabuki theatre religion, whose priests emit tons of carbon flying to Paris to intone deeply about how concerned they are about global warming, er "climate change" when global warming looked less likely... Ah, whatever. It's a religious argument - the alarmist lunatics are wrong, period, so throwing more American taxpayer dollars at this silly noise is dumb. Good for The Donald and good for us all.
France is no longer France.
Is the problem "Not possible to be fair" or is it "Not possible to bend in ways that Trump react to as fair both now and in the future?"
Remember, this is the man whose administration wants to favor energy producers based on the ability to keep 90 days of fuel on-site and who made a core tenet of his public campaigning that he was going to "bring back coal" - even though at this point it's basically the same cost to build and run utility-scale wind generation as it is just to run (forget building new) coal-fired generation.
Basically, there are enough eyes on the Paris accord that it's not possible for Trump's hands to get greased in a hidden-enough way.
fencepost
just a little off
A commitment to abide by the "accord" was made.
It really doesn't, in fact, the lack of binding commitments was a criticism of it.
That said, the President of the United States had previously been authorized to make such accords, in prior environmental laws and treaties, such as the UNFCCC. Ratified 15 Oct 1992 according to the UN, but I don't feel like looking up the Congressional Record.
The most common way is when the president signs a treaty which he has the authority to carry out, without involvement of Congress. This is called a "Sole Executive Treaty".
US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2:
2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Treaties require the consent of the Senate with a two-thirds approval. This "Sole Executive Treaty" you speak of is not constitutional.
The Supreme Court says that the President has the authority to act as the agent of Congress, which they had previously given in the aforementioned treaty, and the Senate certainly didn't act to express its disapproval, so what are you going to do? Complain that Obama negotiated with other countries some more?
Big whup. Goldwater v. Carter already pointed out that you can't just expect them to solve a political question. The Senate needed to act to disapprove first. Can't just whine that they don't like it.
He didn't have to go to Congress because the accord doesn't have any binding commitments.
Then the broohaahaa over the US "backing out" of this accord is moot, since there were no binding commitments to begin with.
Nope. It's actually quite revealing of Trump's attitudes and character. It also obviated the possibility of Senate action against Obama, but opened up action against himself.
I'm not saying that Obama set Trump up for it, but he walked into a trap, all while others were warning him against setting it off.
We didn't have to do nothing, so saying we ain't gonna do nothing is ... well, seems like a rational statement to me.
Nope, it's a poor reading on your part. There's a difference between "No imposition or coercion" and "No action" so maybe you should work harder on your reading comprehension?
And all the states who are saying "we're going to abide by an agreement that doesn't require us to do anything" is pretty meaningless.
Nope. They're actually saying what they're doing, but again, you need to work harder on your reading comprehension.
You really do have a serious problem there, you can't understand what's actually going on, but are relying on a flawed interpretation. That's bad for you.
I think the term is "virtue signaling."
Yes, they're signalling that even without binding commitments, they will undertake certain actions. That is virtuous of them. You just don't want to realize they're doing anything, because...you need them doing nothing, so you can despise them, when instead they're acting without being forced to do so.
As for Trump, he made signals himself, with his litany of lies and falsehoods about the treaty, which he could have simply avoided by pushing it to the Senate to act upon, rather than try to act unilaterally himself. This is not virtuous.
That just offends the other nations that see him being a bombastic and pompous ass.
Poor planning on his part. Like I said, he walked into a trap.
He could have simply sent it to the Senate, done nothing, and pretending he was complying with the law, and nothing would have happened. Instead? He decided to go on a fit, piss people off, and make himself look bad.
The epitome of a losing move.
Nothing personal, but the President should not behave like a nincompoop. He had better options. Why pick the one where he can't help but lose?
... and only since Trump
Trump lewd conversation about women Donald Trump On Tape: I Grab Women "By The Pussy”.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
We are also the only country to provide $75 pelt-peeps on Trotsky progressive hides shot & skinned in the wild. But, chi.com traders buy well-tanned samples to be ground-together with sniveling-RHINO-horns for nature medicine. Funny how that works ...
It relies on the premise that only an agreement that treats all parties equally is fair, much like only equal treatment under the law of all persons is the only fair approach to government. Or to put it another way, it's not so much a premise as a philosophy of equality.
Does anyone believe that a single policy will stop global climate change?
No, they believe each policy will “save the Earth”. And if you're not in favor of every policy, no matter how ineffective or poorly thought out, you're against “saving the Earth”.
That’s what they say anyway. It makes sense if you think of it as a religion.
The US is doing the right thing...finally.
Slashdot never fails to deliver these days. I can only wonder in awe at the kind of deranged mind that thinks New York is Communist, having vanished over the far right event horizon into pure batshit insanity.
It is 8:00pm CST and the UN has condemned Israel again...
captcha; leftistsuck
"Trump tried to renegotiate" He did? He formally approached the other members of the Paris Accord with an actual proposal? Someone in his administration actually said "we wish to renegotiate", outside of press releases or tweets?? If one looks at how the Agreement is designed, there is nothing to "renegotiate". All we have to do is submit a new “nationally determined contribution”, that's it. No negotiation required. For someone who claims to be "the best negotiator ever" who has a "a very good brain" he sure doesn't seem to understand the accord he just dropped us out of. Either he doesn't understand it, or is purposely being deceitful about all of this to play to his base.
Arguing over what to have for dinner. Clearly, there are too many people in the U.S. willing to be sheep.
1. Most who sign on have nothing to lose... many sign on with the promise that they will be given money by the 1st world countries who are agreeing to self-flagellate over global warming. This particular agreement is particularly toxic to any American with at least two brain cells and an ounce of patriotism - It puts big burdens on the US while letting major competitors off the hook and ends up hurting middle class American workers to make coastal elites feel better at parties with their globalist buddies. It's so bad that its proponent, Mr Obama, never even had the guts to even TRY to pass it though congress. It's supported by the very sort of trolls who insist working Americans must make do with less (to SAVE THE PLANET, of course) but it's A-OK for the elites to fly their private jets to conferences in resort locations to discuss these plans (so much for teleconferencing to save the planet...).
2. The number of entities who sign on to ANYTHING has nothing to do with the virtue/benefits of that thing. Going all Godwin here for a moment to make a point: most Germans signed onto NAZIsm in the '30s but that did not make it in any way virtuous.
3. Being the "odd man out", the [breathlessly stated] "only one" who did/did not do something is ONLY indicative of the degree to which one is a lamming.
This drivel is right up there with the complaint that the US is the only major country to not go metric.... SO WHAT???? The US is also the country that invented powered flight, the computer chip, the electronic computer, nuclear powerplants, air conditioning, and lots more, AND the USA is the only country to put a man on the moon. Whether something is good or bad has NOTHING to do with whether everybody else is doing it.
ummm, no. Keeping the global average from rising 0.02C this century is what the US complying would do. This is why people don't take global warming seriously: You people lie soooooooo much.
That's for sure! If it's 78 C outside then you're dead.
And yes, if the orange pumpkin keeps up with his USA-vs-the-world rhetoric I'm sure it will eventually come to sanctions. Economic sanctions against dirty US polluters might wake you lot up.
I would be interested in where you got this information from? Probably from the same place that predicted Hillary would win in a landslide.
I would also like to see the data that you have that says Trump is an ineffective leader. Every indicator that isn't filtered through a anti Trump filter seems to show that we are doing just fine. The GPA is up, illegal immigration is down, and for millions haven't lost health insurance.
So despite the doom and gloom predictions it seems Trump is a effective leader and we are doing just fine.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Most people on planet Earth are too busy living their lives and have never even HEARD of this damned climate agreement.
Those relative few who have heard of it, are mostly not all that concerned about it, and do not know what's in it.
Those who know about it mostly do not know the details, but the ones who do are generally aware that most of the agreement's limits do not apply to them and that if you are in a poor country the agreement probably means more international money flowing to your local dictator. Those in places like India and China who are aware of it probably see it as a plus because it encourages more industry to oursource from the US to places like India and China.
For the most part, this agreement and the US position on it have little impact on the global view of America other than that various local and/or state-run media can use a dishonest headlines view of it for proaganda to rev-up any pre-existing anti-America attitudes. Nothing new to see there....move along...
Because it isn't fair. It will transfer at least $100B from our economy to third world economies for no other reason than it can. Once you look it this treaty is nothing more than an attempt to redistribute wealth from western nations to non western nations. All under the disguise of helping the climate.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
AC posted complete nonsense. We can fight climate change. Only a few fossil fuel companies (mainly old men who own coal mines and say "f*ck the future") stand in the way.
It won't cost much. Honestly, just cut your stupidly big military and pay your way.
The health benefits alone from cleaner air will pay for all of it. It's just idiotic to be a trumpian here.
And your response? Some bollocks about "free money". Jesus Christ! Pay your way!
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
I would argue that it does benefit you. The USA doesn't exist in a dome, it is subject to the same climate change the rest of the planet is along with all the downsides that come with that. If things continue as they are you can expect worse winters in northern US States, far more hurricanes and tornados in the south/east, more wild fires in California as well as flooding throughout the entire country along with the loss of property and life that comes with that.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Trump said he doesn't believe the science. He's a numb nut and put another numb nut in charge of the EPA. It's Trump's fault you look so lame.
Paying for it? Of course you should pay for it. Every developed country should pay, and pay big time. All the benefits so far have flowed to the polluters (i.e. YOU) and so YOU should be on the hook for it.
You got the benefits, now pay up.
...which is why the founders of the USA created it as a constitutional republic with democratic elections.
Pure majority rule is nothing but formallized mob rule where the political minority is expected to willingly submit to be brutalized at the whim of the political majority. This is like the UN which continually wastes time voting on resolution after resolution condemning Israel but cannot bring itself to condemn various terrority entities, simply because there are about 50 Muslim member nations and one Jewish member nation.
In a constitutional republic (like the USA), there are rules that even the majority is not allowed to violate.
Strictly speaking, what happened to the Jews in NAZI Germany is wrong in a consitutional republic like the USA, but perfectly acceptable in a Democracy where the majority agrees to do it, as hapened in the Fatherland. No, I am not asserting that Germany then was a democracy, nor that what happened was ACTUALLY good (sadly on the internet such dicplaimers are necessary) but just pointing out that in a pure democracy it would be perfectly reasonable.
I came here to read the comments. I am pretty sure that six months ago the general perspective would have been much more pro Paris agreement and anti-Trump. My glancing through these comments shows that at this point, people really see how utterly worthless the Paris agreement is in addressing any climate issue at all, how unfair the agreement is to the US, and how corrupt Obama was in the things he did pertaining to the deal.
Curiously... folks still seem to be anti-Trump although that might be shifting slightly ... maybe.
Because your cost/benefit analysis is faulty because it does not adjust after risk analysis.
Maybe that's the grand plan, build a great big beautiful wall up and over the USA
Nullius in verba
Did Bashir-Al-Assad find some chemical weapons that don't cause a greenhouse effect?
What about ISIS , the Kurds, and all the other groups fighting there?
Are they going to use carbon-free explosives in their IED's
I like my car and suburbia. Better than being crammed in like a sardine and relying on government to get me places
I am from Australia and even our government sponsored ABC News run anti-Trump "opinion" and "analysis" articles daily on their news site http://www.abc.net.au/news/ and have done ever since he was elected. It is ridiculous and shows a complete bias on their part. I don't think there is any maliciousness involved, just a bunch of people involved in an echo chamber constantly reinforcing their group-think.
The ABC's Chris Uhlmann did the Trump G20 "tear down" a few months ago. He then toured the US blowing his own horn, and now works for a commercial TV network here in Aus. If that wasn't enough, the ABC had other "journalists" follow up with more front page "analysis" pieces touting how wonderfully insightful the tear-down was. http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
The ABS website have even had a sections called "Trumps America" as a way of highlighting him since he took office.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/don...
The content has calmed down now since the USA amazingly didn't implode when he took office but look back and see the bias they have run against him since he became president. The language, the content, what news they have chosen to omit.
But hey, at least it gives content to second rate comedians:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/pro...
The United States was the only country to make concrete promises. There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises.
Of course you have a citation for this? Because without one it's sounding an awful lot like Trumpbabble.
The US should reduce its pollution, but never enter into such a lop-sided "agreement".
The US produces a lop-sided amount of pollution right now, so any agreement will have lop-sided measures. The world is naturally lop-sided, so calling for absolute perfection or nothing is pretty lame.
Because the data suggests...
The data (your posts) don't merely suggest, or insinuate, or even state - it screams to the heavens that you, PopeRatzo, are a truly pathetic loser who hates the beauty and glory of Western Civilization and the power of God Emperor Trump!
Every other country signed the agreement because they literally don't have to do anything or pay anything. The US was paying the bulk of the funding, even though the EU has a larger economy than the US. The US had the most to lose in this stupid deal.
Climate science is a very tight knit community. If you don't subscribe to the popular theory, you can't get in to a graduate or doctorate program. It's become a cult where dissent is not tolerated or accepted. It's easy to get consensus when you ensure that no one that disagrees can be credentialed.
Agreed - climate "science" is like modern "art", Communism, Scientology, North Korea, the Democratic Party, and radical Islam - it's a cult where one's status is determined by the volume of irrational histrionics one can create daily.
No, it will happen but not on your schedule.
My question remains who are you and yours going to blame?
After all it will not be your fault will it.
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
... deranged mind that thinks New York is Communist...
Actually, it's more Anarchist than Communist, but as Spain learned in their Civil War, the Communists eventually kill or enslave the Anarchists.
I thank God every day that Franco defeated them both. I pray that Trump will do the same.
That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.
Let's give it a couple more years before declaring success ok?
The American people hired him to drain the swamp.
Yeah, yeah draining in the swamp. Good one. We hate the wealthy so let's elect a bunch of rich white guys with a life long track record of fucking over poor people to save us. How is that working out?
It is clear that the establishment...
The Establishment? What exactly is that? Because from here it looks like Trump is the Establishment. I mean it's rough playing victim when you know, you actually run the country. How long does Trump keep blaming others fro everything before he actually takes responsibility for something?
illegal immigration is down,
How do you know?
That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.
Talk about bogus logic. The damage that Trump does will in some cases take several months to manifest. There is some bureaucratic inertia involved, and that's great, or we would in fact be nosediving. Really, you don't think Perry as secretary of energy isn't going to do lasting harm ?
The American people hired him to drain the swamp.
which he is most certainly not doing. between special deals for coal producers and tax cuts which are heavily. heavily slanted in favor of the rich, the suckers that voted for him are victims of one of the most obvious, and greatest, cons ever.
only on slashdot could such obvious drivel get uprated.
Trump has amply demonstrated that he is utterly incapable of being president and is lying, boldly and demonstrably lying pretty much everyday.
you don't think that's a problem, or it's just something that "pisses off" the establishment ?
you are some kind of special trolly schmuck, even for Slashdot.
Absolute statements are never true
All the kids in the classroom voting for recess all day. There's only one vote that matters.
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
Not to mention I read a recent news report that said the USA was doing a better job reducing it's carbon emissions compared to neighboring Canada.
While the US federal government might not want to abide by this treaty, a number of US states are making strong efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
So I guess you don't always need bludgeoning "new world order" treaties to get something "positive" done after all.....
That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.
Because he hasn't been able to do much of consequence yet.
His party came up with a disastrous idea for a healthcare bill, a competent President who understood himself to be accountable for the consequences would have pushed them to a different bill, instead three Senators are the only thing that prevented a disastrous modification to the healthcare system.
He came up with a terrible idea for immigration, he moderated it to get around the courts and it still got blocked forcing him to moderate it further. And he's got some braindead idea to pull out of NAFTA which will hammer the US economy.
Now his party is pushing a tax plan wanted by no one except for their rich donors, again a competent President concerned about their popularity and legacy would go for something different.
His also trying to pick a fight with North Korea.
Frankly Trump isn't as bad as I thought he'd be, he's actually worse. The difference is he's also less competent than I thought, so his badness hasn't actually been able to translate into action.
The American people hired him to drain the swamp. That's going to piss a lot of people off.
What swamp is he draining? His cabinet is basically a mixture of fringe GOP and rich people.
Don't give me that shit about racism or treason or whatever. I've followed this from before the primaries. Trump wasn't a racist nor was he treasonous before the election and he isn't now.
I have no idea how racist he personally is, but there's a reason why the KKK and NeoNazis have been among the most dedicated Trumpists from the start. Heck, his campaign manager and chief of staff ran a publication that ran articles in collaboration with NeoNazis.
I stole this Sig
It is not a prediction. The candidates that Donald Trump endorsed lost tonight by much bigger than expected margins. The elections are over and the votes have been counted. Even the Virginia House flipped from Republican to Democratic.
He hasn't been able to get a single bit of his landmark legislative agenda passed. The greatest deal-maker to have ever lived can't seem to cut a deal.
All of the polls...all of them, including the right-leaning ones, show Trump at his lowest approval ratings since he was elected. Here's a conservative website that has the news for you:
https://www.realclearpolitics....
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well when you start off with a 98% approval rating it is hard to go up.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
but think of this....The US is the only county to not sign on.....maybe that's part of the plan...
some countries wouldn't sign because we would but now that's not an issue.. Trump got the rest of the world to agree to it...and
several states say they are going to abide no matter what Trump wants.....
perhaps reverse psychology is the plan....
He's not draining the swamp and his attempts to make america great mostly involve isolationism. This allows other countries to pick up the slack, thus abandoning our dominant position in the world.
I'm okay with that. Why spend money on a theory when it's shown it won't do what Paris wants anyway?
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Yeah, don't start partying yet. From what I see all that is happening is democrats are ether getting reelected or more democrats are just replacing democrats. Not really a big win for democrats as the status quo doesn't change.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Dang dude, how much of Trump's cock are you hoping to suck? Maybe you should try to retroactively suck Stalin's cock.
Hey a$$holes. That was not a troll post. It is factually true. Our CO2 emissions have dropped as a result of increased use of natural gas (fracking) in place of coal.
The Paris Climate Treaty requires the US to subsidize developing countries. Read it for yourselves.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Democrats picked up 14 seats in the Virginia House. The biggest Dem win since 1899. It had previously been controlled by Republicans. Washington state senate just flipped from GOP to Democratic control. The Republican whip of the Minnesota legislature was replace by a Democratic Socialist. The Republican who wrote the Virginia "bathroom bill" was defeated by a transgender woman.
It's not just "democrats replacing democrats". But look, if it will help you sleep tonight, OK. I'm not trying to upset you.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Try this:
Obama doing something bad (by decree or otherwise) is good. Trump doing something good, for valid reasons is bad.
Fixed that for you.
It has no pussy to grab of course he does not understand it. Then again I do not think he really understands pussy either.
Ilk is such a virtuous word.
You give everyone on this thread a dollar, and everyone here takes a dollar from you. I think everyone would be on board with that -- well, everyone except for you.
Please for the love of god go actually read what the Paris Climate Accord actually does. You are repeating Fox News and Alex Jones talking points which are wildly inaccurate.
That 100 billion would actually end up going to U.S. companies which sell water filtration and clean power generation. There is nothing in the bill that requires no oversight in how the money gets spent, it specifically says we have the ability to choose and again, its optional so we don't even have to give any money.
If I am understanding this correctly, you are stating that this problem will fix itself. Why then is governmental intervention needed?
We hate the wealthy so let's elect a bunch of rich white guys with a life long track record of fucking over poor people to save us. How is that working out?
To be fair who else is a white person to vote for? The Democrats openly dislike and work against them (citation below). Seriously, this is like David Duke wondering why he doesn't get the black vote.
Citations: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/... http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/23/...
The GDP per capita of Syria is 2000USD. The GDP per capita of the USA is 57000 USD.
The USA produces 3.35 times more value per tonne of CO2 than Syria. Who is the bigger problem here?
So - your argument isn't that it transfers $100 billion to foreign Governments, but rather transfers $100 billion to large corporations who then donate $100 billion worth of goods and services to foreign Governments?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I see no wall
Why doesn't he just fix the bits he doesn't like and re-name it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
do you need environment to live and prosper?
Virtue and being a Sesame Street character are different things.
Stop being so though on yourself. You are most welcome to join us driving *on* the road next time!
Says someone who has never been to an "inner city." People who live in cities are not afraid of the city. It's cowards who refuse to go there that think they're death traps.
They have problems. They should get solved. Lowering taxes for the rich won't fix it, so I guess we're out of republican ideas. Guess we'll give the Democrats another go.
You are reliant on government to fix the potholes, keep the red lights running, inspect the bridges, direct traffic when shit hits the fan, clear the debris of flipped cars, police the dangerous drivers, add lanes to accommodate traffic, peel the dead animals off the road, prevent assholes with guns from claiming the road and charging you a toll, and build the damn road in the first place, even though half the places you go would be unprofitable to build roads to.
But you're still welcome to complain that government only gets in your way. God bless America.
... country to have lowered theit carbon emissions below the levels of 1995.
How is it fair to all the other countries that the US produces much more CO2 than they do?
If you're pumping out twice as much CO2 as China, and they are making most of your stuff. Explain why you shouldn't be paying something towards cleaning up your own mess?
"The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. "
It is not that the US hasn't been a major contributor in the past which lead to the level of CO2 we're at now and to the problem we're facing now. You want fair, the US would have to do way more than is in the Paris climate deal.
Bert
And when you're down to as low as Trump is it's hard to go lower. What was your point?
Fallacy. Appeal to popularity.
And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.
It benefits them, but the deal does not benefit the US. You know that and are being an asshole, which is why you wrote:
I'm not going to climb into a rabbit hole full of BS trying to argue that it's fair and/or to the US's benefit.
Even better would be "If everyone in the galley stops rowing to avoid sailing off the edge of the world, shouldn't you do the same?"
Is the headline true, I believe Taiwan wasn't allowed to sign due to pressure from China.
Fallacy. Appeal to popularity.
And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.
It benefits them, but the deal does not benefit the US. You know that and are being an asshole, which is why you wrote:
I've been ignoring the ACs but this isn't the first comment to say something like this and the ignorant theme is starting to get annoying.
There seems to be a delusion that the Paris Climate deal is some sort of conspiracy aimed at the US and all the rest of the planet is out to screw you over.
Well it's not all about you, other countries are making sacrifices too.
You know where I'm from? Alberta. Our economy is based on oil, not just any oil, the oilsands which are really hard (ie expensive) to extract and process.
You're worried that your country might give a few billion to some developing nations to help them transition to renewables?
When the world starts transitioning from oil the price is going to plummet, when the price plummets the big expensive oilsands will be one of the first casualties.
I don't know exactly what that's going to do to my province... but it's going to be bad. Mass unemployment and bankruptcies, huge downsizing of the economy, my current employer may not survive, most of my friends and family are going to be adversely affected. I'm guessing I have at lot more at stake than you my dear AC.
But I'm not pretending that AGW isn't happening, and I'm not spinning excuses to justify why Alberta should exempt from taking action. I'm acting like a grownup and dealing with the situation. AGW is a problem for everybody and my province needs to cut back on its emissions, it needs to use the time and wealth it has to diversify its economy. And I need to plan my future for the possibility I'll have to move.
I stole this Sig
The US can make its own policy. Also the Paris Accord was signed by Obama and never ratified, so we weren't obligated to follow it anyway. I don't like the US following global agendas.
Unless you can buy me a new planet, still the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's the exact same tactic denialists use,
Do keep your religion in your pants if you can. Yours is the exact same tactic that got Trump elected.
And will get him reelected again if you and yours don't dial down the crazy.
You're mistaken. He only ever sits in his car on his driveway while making "broom broom" noises.
One of Putins little cockgobblers confirmed. How is St Petersburg? How are you coping with the TB infection?
What that claim is is a big fat lie.
So if we lock up murderers, we should lock up people going to work so that we don't treat them differently therefore unfairly.
To further the point:
Some may be stamping on the breaks, others more gently. The US is saying that unless everyone else is applying the same amount of break-force it will apply none. The US leadership can congratulate themselves on not suffering whiplash while plummeting to their doom.
Because it isn't fair. It will transfer at least $100B from our economy to third world economies for no other reason than it can. Once you look it this treaty is nothing more than an attempt to redistribute wealth from western nations to non western nations. All under the disguise of helping the climate.
The West of your country has been burning up with forest fires. The East has been flooded. Tornadoes are increasing in the centre. All of this is linked to global warming and will get worse because of it. This is a problem for everyone, including you. In other places in the world the problem is worse.
America has released well over 200GT of emissions, more than any other country and, compared to your nearest rival (china) you released almost 1000T per person where they are well below 100T. This is a problem caused by you. Only the United Arab Emirates are worse and then, only in the sense of emissions per person. They have committed to helping in the Paris process.
The rest of the world is becoming energy dependent and moving up in lifestyle. They can either do this the cheapest way - burning wood and coal in local stoves, or they move directly to electricity if someone helps them. Because you did this transformation before, your economy is now worth over 18 Trillion dollars per year. Even if $100B was to come out in one year (which it won't have to) and was simply going to be a cost (which it won't be because the countries will then be able to trade with you and buy your products) and if you had to do this alone (which you won't because the EU has committed to being much more generous than the USA) then this is a problem that you could easily solve and which, having benefited from using everyone's atmosphere for your development, you have a moral duty to solve.
It is entirely fair reasonable and easy for the USA to pull its weight here.
Some further information.
> So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
Because your society has a very strange notion of "fair" indeed...
(Fair to the Koch brothers? If you have two brain cells left, you should be asking yourself whether you haven't fallen for their propaganda: they do invest quite a bit in that, you know)
And they're not much for hitler either. Those biased fuckwits in the media!
But then again, you never said you had evidence FOR your claim, only that you had evidence. Of a different claim was not assumed.
Better to be a leader than a follower.
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
It does benefit you and is fair, so why shouldn't you?
The Paris climate deal isn't binding, it's just a statement of intent, to show that everyone is interested of going in the same direction.
Trumps refusal to join in on it has nothing to do what is in the agreement or anything.
From his side it is just posturing, it goes well together with his "America first" and "Coal is the future" while not actually requiring any effort.
His voters will still be screwed over by it since it creates badwill towards the US for no good reason.
The better option would have been to join in on the agreement and then just ignore whatever goal you set for yourself like everyone else will do.
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
Maintaining the current biosphere doesn't "benefit" this clown. Stupid cunt really, just like all climate denying dickheads.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
In the eye's of the US it might not seem fair, but that's more because that country already lags behind most other countries, so it's harder for them to keep up and in that regard it seems like unfair for them, but it's their own fault for not doing something about it earlier. All countries have the same restrictions...
To save earth, because you have to start with a joint declaration of intent before you can implement concrete enforcable rules.
Yeah, and then just pour water in.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Paris Accord is a joke and will solve nothing until all nations quite building new coal plants.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
that is precisely what happens with the "Climate Funding". Read the fucking document before commenting you stupid, alarmist dickhead.
I thought you were the one saying there's cause for alarm.
all the virtue signalling, leftist dipshits that swallow this lie hook, line and sinker.
So do the work and show this to be the case. (You're posting as AC, so I won't hold my breath.)
Climate change now accelerated to 1 degree per HOUR!!!!
As the Sun cums up, the earth's temperature goes up
average 1 degree per hour. And when then Sun cums
down, the globe cools 1 degree per hour.
Climate is changing every hour!
Awe noooo! This is making me crispy and toasted.
Can I have a bacon sandwich to top it all off?
(p.s. This is a conspiraCEEEE to get a free bacon sandwich off of non-deniers if I can get away with it.)
Virginia's population has been swinging more democratic for a while, starting with their last governor and continuing, this does not reflect real changes in the national politics at all, especially in the heartland neither does New Jersey electing a Democrat to replace Christie (a moderate democrat who called himself a Republican but who is far from conservative).
> Don't forget the death penalty.
There is no Second Amendment without capital punishment. It is not possible to let people have firearms, making it so easy to murder people, without having the method to punish perpetrators adequately. Either firearms will have to be confiscated or the people will take serving justice into their own hands seeing how 72x homicidor gets latest Xbox with net in his luxury cell. There will be blood revenge and the nation will descend into anarchy.
Those seem to the pre2013nbers. Co2 studies after there squarely put china ahead by double the emissions and even per capita ratings the US is not the leader nor sole villain.
This seems to be slanted slightly. Hey, go ask China to change and we can follow suit!
He only ever sits in his mom's car on his mom's driveway
FTFH
Because of course the world as it is is fair? Because, if you are born in the USA you obviously deserve the life you've got while raping the planet, and if you're born in Monrovia or wherever you obviously deserve to die at 32 from disease, war or pollution... Right?
You are literally the most stupid person you know.
With the clown-in-chief the US is falling faster and faster...All empires are mortal history teaches us. Case in point, the Paris Climate Deal, there was an opportunity for the US to lead the world once again, shape the world for the next 50-100 years, be an industrial powerhouse again and maintain their status in the tech side with all that is needed for green energy, but nooo! MAGA! Coal! Wall! I only hope demise will be quick (I expect 40 years, hope for 20) so that this increasingly backwards country is so deep in shit economically, that they don't pose a threat anymore with their blatant disregard for the rest of the planet, and their oversized military. Or that enlightened americans win in their own country and save the day...Don't think that's the most probable unfortunately.
GDP is not the same thing as value. Having fewer middlemen in a supply chain reduces GDP but increases value.
if you want to "drain the swamp", you don't put the swamp-monster in charge of the clean up.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
can you post your scientific credentials and experience in this field so we see if its worth worrying about your armchair analysis on slashdot.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Yeah, we know you touchy-feely types want to have everyone walking everywhere and deprive us of our greatest freedoms, the freedom to travel, but that isn't going to fly here in the USA. We can't ride a bike across the country, its too big - well, at least _I_ can't. We will fight to maintain our freedom to move when and where we want to go, and not necessarily on the schedule of some public transport scheme that is closed when I want to go somewhere (like the Washington, DC Metro system - you can't reliably take it somewhere in the evening, and expect to ride it back 'cuz it'll stop the trains about the time you get out of a movie or somesuch. If you don't have your car waiting within walking distance of the movie, you're likely to end up spending big bucks on a damned Taxi to the Metro station where your car is parked.)
I don't get it. You post that US inner cities are not safe and everyone keeps trying to argue that you're wrong, US inner cities are not safe!?! Come on, we can do better at reading comprehension. I know it.
We are reducing emissions more than any other country by the increasing use of natural gas, and replacing coal-fired generating stations as the go obsolete (and NOT by gov't edict that causes a good generating station with a lot of service life to be wasted - Waste, that's what gov't does, always.) We're building wind and solar out the wazoo, although those efforts amount to still a tiny fraction of the more reliable sources of power of coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear.
Getting out of the damned agreement was all about not shipping cubic money out of the country to pay for OTHER COUNTRY's climate mitigation efforts. We make agreements and act like we have a bottomless pit of money, when in actuality we teeter on the brink of economic collapse with a 20+ Trillion Dollar Debt. We have to stop doing stupid shit, and paying for the rest of the world's climate efforts, which will be like paying them for anything else - the money will end up decorating some potentate's palace - is stupid shit.
What Trump considers "fair" isn't what the rest of the world view as fair.
The reason they don't want to accept it is because they don't view a republican US concept of what should be done as "fair."
Thanks isolation processes for wasting all of our stupid time. There is always going to be one reason not known.
Start from there and work back, because a fraction of a % of those funds will add up quickly.
RRK
CAPTCHA: formulae
... obscured In a thick black cloud of burnt coal.
MAGA!!
Yes, thank you. If the world were fair this comment would be 5, insightful.
Could you supply that list of scientists that have checked off yes or no to AGW? I keep hearing about the majority or 97%, but never have seen this running list of scientists that say yea or nay. I do not believe you have one or that this list actually exists, but if you plan to cite this fib please provide this one measure of evidence.
There are many papers about the scientific consensus on global warming. The third hit on google is the Wikipedia article that reviews several of these articles:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Several of those studies are based on polling of scientists. Others are based on literature reviews. If you are looking for an actual list of names, good luck, that would be a long list. The lack of a list does not make the consensus numbers a fib, it just means that they are not derived from a publicly-available poll. To my knowledge no one has set up such a public poll (one that only card-carrying climate scientists can take part in, whatever that would mean). You can find a few lists of notable scientists that do not believe in climate change (or that it is human driven) but their ranks are getting thin.
The atmospheric science community is generally skeptical of anti-climate-change attitudes because of this consensus. But that does not make it a cult, it makes it a scientific community that, like other fields, demands extraordinary evidence if a consensus is to be overturned. That consensus did not magically appear - it came about because of a large amount data over many years that points in a certain direction.
Likewise, a scientist claiming the earth is flat would require extraordinary evidence to convince the geography community of that. That does not mean there is a round-earth cult or that geographers are especially tight knit. It just means that there is consensus about the earth being round.
One question I keep asking folks who deny that humans are driving climate change: is there any amount or type of evidence that scientists can provide that will convince them to change their mind?
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
This is like say "hay, you have been shot, hold this rolled up shirt over the wound to stem the bleeding while we get you to hospital" and responding "your shirt isn't a solution to being shot, so I'm just gonna lie here and bleed to death".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
How much experience driving off of cliffs do you have?
US is now the only country in the world SMART ENOUGH to reject the Paris "take money from rich countries and give it to the poor countries" so called climate deal.
There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises.
It's pretty easy actually. NASA's Earth science satellites can measure pollutants in the atmosphere. People on the ground can take independent measurements. It's impossible to hide pollution on the scale that it is being emitted, and we know how much each country is emitting with a very high degree of certainty.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Are you retarded? Chinese produces less than half the CO2 of an American. And China makes all your stuff !!
"I suppose if everyone else was jumping off a bridge you would too?"
Yeah, my mom used that on me a lot.
Climate change is a scam, and it's proven should you care to look at the evidence available. Just the temperature data manipulations should cause thinking people to stop and question the conclusions being forced on them by the elites. Claiming the detractors are not credible is plugging your ears and pretending nothing is off here. Claiming you can;t or haven't read the detractors' evidence is irresponsible. This is a big deal - the climate nazis are determined to change our world, and not for your best interests, and to do so while avoiding the worst impacts on themselves or merely kicking that can down the road to your children and grandchildren.
Global warming is a scam. The evidence is clear. Truth to power.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Why are they jumping? Is the cliff on fire? Is there a horde of rabid Chihuahuas chasing them? What's at the bottom of the cliff, water? I might be tempted to follow.
Yeah. Poor USA. You always do the most and pull the heaviest chart.
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
Syrians didn't either until the US decided it was time for Assad to go after their former success stories in Iraq and Libya.
As someone living in a country of massive public spending I agree.
Yeah. Great. Gas instead of coal.
Meanwhile we disgusting Scandinavians not doing our share continue with renewable and a bit of nuclear.
Such nasty scum.
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
Of course it's easier here in Sweden were we supposedly didn't promised anything.
Something very new for being Sweden. I'm amazed by our new politicians who supposedly promised to do much less than the always so willing to sacrifice for common good US of A.
Strange times.
Is that true, though? Does Trump even acknowledge climate change? I'd be shocked if he wasn't just being partisan or ignorant.
Because glowing in the dark is much better for the environment than carbon emissions?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Nothing to stop you from doing the right thing.
I'm concerned about our children's future so I've:
- purchased a Tesla S (used)
- installed Solar City panels on my roof (leased from them)
So far I've been able to charge my car on sunny days for free, and cloudy days I'm just using minimal power from the big electric company.
Everyone can do something to cut down on pollution. I'm so shocked LA and NYC don't permanently ban fossil burning vehicles that belch who knows what. Why get pissed at Trump when you can't control him?
"The U.S.'s stark isolation should give Trump reason to reconsider his ill-advised announcement and join the rest of the world in tackling climate change."
There is no reasoning with a destructive narcissist.
Yes, fracking has historically been the reason coal is going away
Any further questions?
Every few years, a group of third-world countries gets together at the UN and votes for the rich countries of the world to give them a boatload of money. In this case, climate is the justification for the stickup. The rich countries could only have become rich by raping the world and stealing a disproportionate share of the world's resources, which clearly belong to everybody. To atone for this, they must now pay huge sums of money to the unsuccessful countries so that they can "catch up" with the successful countries and still not use the world's resources wastefully. This is what the "Paris Accord" is all about. Most of the countries clamoring for the US to join this scheme are the intended recipients of this wealth. Of course they want the plan to proceed, and they want all the donor countries in place to provide the money. We all want to save the planet. But this is not really about saving the planet; it is about redistributing the wealth of the world to produce a happy socialist paradise.
To the intellectual lightweight who modded my post "flamebait" for pointing out that it was not wind/solar which pulled the carpet out from beneath solar (presumably because they perceived that I was taking a side in the larger debate, which I was not)... well done! :)
"... beneath coal," that is to say.
If these are the twits rooting for the environment, we're truly fucked...
This is the perfect time for this one:
https://xkcd.com/1170/
If we are talking per capita, the the US doesn't even crack the top 10. So explain again why the US to bear the brunt of this agreement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Yeah leading the way Americaaaa!!
Love Trump
He didnt start at 98% though...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
His highest approval rating looks to be 46% and for the most part it doesnt look like he can keep it above 40%.
You don't owe anyone anything you haven't agreed to owe.
Really? So, if I hit your car I don't owe you anything just because I don't agree I owe you anything? Wow, what an interesting little black and white universe you have created for yourself.
In addition, it's not like fossil fuel production, shipment, and consumption are secrets at the scale of a country. Not hard to ballpark any nation's emissions just examining that. Nobody is hoarding the fossil fuels they extract or import at any meaningful scale.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises.
It's pretty easy actually. NASA's Earth science satellites can measure pollutants in the atmosphere. People on the ground can take independent measurements. It's impossible to hide pollution on the scale that it is being emitted, and we know how much each country is emitting with a very high degree of certainty.
OK, then replace my phrase with the equally discouraging one that's there's no enforcement in the treaty.
Why doesn't he just fix the bits he doesn't like and re-name it.
Go take Civics 101 for what powers the POTUS has and does not have.
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climatedepot.com
Remember what your mom told thou as a little child: "if everyone else jumps off a cliff, does that mean you have to also?"
Why are windmills for electricity illegal
The hockey stick was a scientific fraud. IPCC panel used and abused it. However, it's stuck in the minds of lay people, just like the idea that fat is bad
I think the US position is completely sensible, given the track record of the modern climatology. Wait and see is the right approach
I would also like to see the data that you have that says Trump is an ineffective leader. Every indicator that isn't filtered through a anti Trump filter seems to show that we are doing just fine. The GPA is up, illegal immigration is down, and for millions haven't lost health insurance.
So despite the doom and gloom predictions it seems Trump is a effective leader and we are doing just fine.
And what exactly has Trump done to make the GDP go up, illegal immigration go down, or prevent millions from losing their health insurance?
The GDP continues to go up thanks to Barrack Obama's economic policies which Trump has not yet bothered to change, and millions haven't lost their health insurance thanks to John McCain's refusal to do what Trump wants, which is the opposite of good leadership on Trump's behalf. The illegal immigration thing might however, be true. Anecdotally, it appears that fewer immigrants, illegal or otherwise, want to live in Trump's America.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You owe them something back.
You don't owe anyone anything you haven't agreed to owe.
Sweet! I'm going to start an oil change service and dump all the used oil in your yard. I didn't agree to owe you anything for polluting your yard. And besides, I'm going to make way more money if I don't have the overhead of dealing with the waste. You're apparently ok with it, so it's a win-win right?
More here
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If all the other kids jumped off a bridge would you?
Yes, his argument is that it's an easy way for the United States to subsidize and invest in it's own economy to improve it's international competitiveness and Trump doesn't want to do that because "Climate Change was invented by the Chinese".
If you think that's a stupid decision only a moron would make, it's because it is.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The US share for the Paris Climate Agreement seems to be $3 billion.
I rest my case.
Until 2020, which is the earliest point, the US is part of the Paris Accords.
And after last night's blue wave election, most Americans live in states which are meeting and exceeding the emissions reductions, actions which make our states more efficient, more resilient, and drive down our costs of doing business.
If you live, sadly, in a state without a carbon tax, you're still paying carbon taxes when you buy or sell goods outside the US. But, if you have no carbon tax where you are, the money won't go back into your state, it will go to the foreign country you are doing business with. They keep it all. If you had a state carbon tax, then you can deduct that from the foreign country carbon tax owed. And the money would stay in your state.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The US produces a lop-sided amount of pollution right now, so any agreement will have lop-sided measures. The world is naturally lop-sided, so calling for absolute perfection or nothing is pretty lame.
Of course you have a citation for this?
Let us hope that the US will continue to provide a good example to the rest of the world!
This is like say "hay, you have been shot, hold this rolled up shirt over the wound to stem the bleeding while we get you to hospital"
No, it's like say [sic] "hey, you've been shot, here's a cute plastic Furby to make you feel better about being shot, even though you'll probably bleed out before we get to the hospital." Your analogy fails because every scientist involved acknowledges that the "Paris Accord" will have only a placebo effect on global climate because it is filled with feel-good statements without any real commitments to do anything. It's not going to act as a pressure dressing to stop the increase in heat or carbon dioxide.
And, of course, admitting that the Paris Accord isn't a solution isn't saying that nothing will ever be done. So your analogy fails on that point, too.
The US is doing the Right thing. There's a difference.
And under the leadership of the Big Giant Orange Head, the Right thing is literally always the Wrong thing.
Hah! You do realize he also started with the lowest approval rating in history, right?
No it wasn't a step in the right direction.
If you believe that maybe you should stop breathing, because you're polluting the air with CO2.
I don't think it's honest to make the assertion that because the US doesn't join up a non binding climate agreement that has no actual oversight or quality assurance of self reported numbers means the US is doing nothing cause that is not the case. Just look at the progress over the past decades. I get it's not a good message to the "world", but that is about as far as you can go with this story. It's a bad PR mistake.
glowing in the dark
It's dark here in the north!!
The followers of Saul Alinsky have been trained to accuse people of the very things they are guilty of; it the old principle of the so-called moral lie. Do not be surprised when communists OR neoconservatives lie, defraud and slander in defense of their agenda; it is what lairs, frauds and slanderers have been trained to do.
Definitely.
But it's also not a thing.
And the more who had used nuclear the more likely we'd make better reactors to use what's now spent fuel to make it even less dangerous in the future. Bit outdated stats:
Norway:
* 95% hydro power
Denmark:
* 47% wind, hydro, solar power
* 13% biomass & waste
* 40% mostly coal & ignote, a small bit natural gas and even less nuclear.
Sweden:
* 41% nuclear
* 41% hydro power
* 10% wind power
Finland and Iceland sit outside but, Finland:
* 27% nuclear
* 20% hydro power
* 3% wind power
* 12% wood, 3.5% peat
* 12.5% gas, coal and oil
Iceland:
* 70% hydro power
* 30% geothermal power
I've seen claimed before here on Slashdot how supposedly coal generated more radioactive waste but as for whatever that's true or not I don't know.
Personally I would prefer if we ran though the waste for even more electricity and could store it for a few hundreds years rather than ten of thousands of years but even in the later case we've got old pretty stable mountains to store the waste in.
China poured more concrete from 2011 to 2013 than America did during the entire 20th century. But it's okay because there are over a billion Chinese and only a relatively few Americans.
"Virtue signalling" is a term asshats use to signal they are asshats.
Only boring people are ever bored.
More climate skeptics would take arguments in favor of climate change more seriously if those who espouse it would act more like they believed it.
Let's take a generic movie star talking about the environment, and how we need to save the planet. I'd ask, what is the carbon footprint of the movie industry? Making the movie itself is certainly not negligible. There's building sets and props, transporting cast and crew, -feeding- cast and crew, producing marketing materials, distributing them, and so on. And then there's the theaters themselves: huge, climate controlled buildings, that people have to travel to, producing more greenhouse gases and toxic emissions. And then the DVDs that get produced. And the TVs that watch the DVDs and on demands. So if the Earth is -truly- in that great a danger, here you are contributing directly and indirectly to it with your chosen career. Why should I respect what you have to say about it?
How many of us are accessing this site through computers? Laptops or desktops, they both take power. Smartphones too, of course, if perhaps not as much. Still, fossil fuels are being burned to power your devices to be here to read this. Granted, you're individually not contributing a lot, but you still are contributing, and if the danger is as great as they say, then -any- contribution is to be feared. Yet here you are, browsing the web, saying that it's okay for you to have this much impact.
How does handing over 100 Billion dollars from the 1st world reduce pollution? Wouldn't increased money in the third world lead to more pollution? How is this not a globalist socialism scam?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Sweden is the best country for sandni g gers to rape White women, but what does that have to do with any of this?
We're still running on the Obama legacy, for the most part. Also, the reason millions haven't lost health insurance is that a few Republican Senators joined with the Democrats to thwart all attempts at health care "reform". Trump had wanted to repeal the ACA, and couldn't get an acceptable bill through a Republican Congress.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Speaking as a white person, I find the Democrats to be welcoming and helpful. Your first cite is an attempt by the DNC to get diversity in its employee base. They've already got enough cisgender straight white men, and would prefer not to increase that. Your second is a quote from an ex-Sanders aide, and I'll remind you that Sanders is not a Democrat.
In other words, the Democratic Party is just fine for whites who don't insist on keeping supremacy.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Are you sure that this "they" of yours numbers enough people to count as plural? I've never seen any of "them" as you describe "them".
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's something people like you do much in the same way a peacock shows his feathers.
You don't actually give a shit about any of the things you pretend to care about. If you did, you'd do more than Like stories about them on Facebook, whine at parties, or be a smug asshole on Slashdot.
I don't owe you anything I haven't agreed to owe you, either. Not even access to my yard... which you seem to want to take even though I don't owe it to you.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Speaking as a white person, I find the Democrats to be welcoming and helpful. Your first cite is an attempt by the DNC to get diversity in its employee base. They've already got enough cisgender straight white men, and would prefer not to increase that. Your second is a quote from an ex-Sanders aide, and I'll remind you that Sanders is not a Democrat.
In other words, the Democratic Party is just fine for whites who don't insist on keeping supremacy.
You do realize that it's illegal to attempt to get diversity by excluding people upfront right? I don't think it's "white supremacy" to ask that the qualifications be related to the job and not which protected class you are. I see your subtle dig where you imply that anyone who disagrees with you must be promoting white supremacy. If excluding people who you have enough of is "diversity" and implying that disagreeing with excluding people is "keeping white supremacy", and all that is what you call welcoming and helpful, I'll pass.
You did agree to owe it when you drove your car on a public road. Driving on a public road comes with responsibilities one must agree to before being allowed the privilege.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
your "congress" is a parliament, learn English
Ok, fine. So if I burn leaves and trash night and day upwind from your home you're ok with that because I don't owe anything to you that I haven't agreed to be owed? I don't need access to your yard to do that, and short of you gaining access to my yard (which, as you pointed out, I don't owe to you), you can't stop me. And it's a much more direct microcosm of the problem we're discussing.
Wrong. I'm not dependent on the government for this. The government is dependent on ME and all the other working tax payers for all of this. It is the people NOT the government that male this happen. As soon as the government stops serving the interests of the people it can go to hell.
What if i kill your tree? Or your cow? Or burn poison ivy 24/7 five feet from your door. There list is near infinite, and no matter how many times you trot out "no true Scotsman", such a broad statement will never ring true. Sometimes you owe things out of obligation for your actions, regardless of your consent.
Any argument can be invalidated by taking it out of the context in which it is maid. My point was specifically against assigning undue obligations to those never assumed them because someone else decided they should have the responsibility of Noblesse Oblige. You are trying to drag this argument into the domain of "don't tread on me" territory. It's outside the scope.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
To be fair who else is a white person to vote for?
There was more than two choices. Until people start voting for someone else, the cycle will continue...
We are reducing emissions more than any other country by the increasing use of natural gas
Increasing?
Please, tell me again what is the product of the combustion of natural gas?
Answer: CO2
https://www.theguardian.com/en... Of course it's easier here in Sweden were we supposedly didn't promised anything.
Sorry I didn't see what the concrete promises were vs the vague promises? What are the US proposing that is better/worse/more concrete/less vague than others?
Unless you can buy me a new planet, still the US.
That's what all the SpaceX investing is for.
Haven't you been paying attention?
There seems to be a delusion that the Paris Climate deal is some sort of conspiracy aimed at the US and all the rest of the planet is out to screw you over.
It isn't a conspiracy, the drafting committee members of the UN has said the Paris Agreement (note no "climate" in the title) is a wealth redistribution medium.
You're worried that your country might give a few billion to some developing nations to help them transition to renewables?
Firstly, 100 billion. The floor was an expected 100 billion contribution. Secondly, if the US did give away that kind of money, all it would do is embolden ideologues like you to claim that other countries are doing more than the US is and happily ignore that they are doing it with our money.
When the world starts transitioning from oil the price is going to plummet, when the price plummets the big expensive oilsands will be one of the first casualties.
When? Has been for decades.
I'm guessing I have at lot more at stake than you my dear AC.
And? Being a victim does not make your claims more valid.
I'm not spinning excuses to justify why Alberta should exempt from taking action. I'm acting like a grownup and dealing with the situation
Quantaman of slashdot, the B52 of strawman and ad hominem attacks is claiming to be "Acting like a grownup."
my province needs to cut back on its emissions, it needs to use the time and wealth it has to diversify its economy.
Less impressive than if you followed your expectations for others and said, "I need to give money to developing nations like India and China so they can diversify their economy."
And after all that you still have not addressed the original points made.
There seems to be a delusion that the Paris Climate deal is some sort of conspiracy aimed at the US and all the rest of the planet is out to screw you over.
It isn't a conspiracy, the drafting committee members of the UN has said the Paris Agreement (note no "climate" in the title) is a wealth redistribution medium.
I don't know if you're the AC I originally responded to, but you're shifting goalposts. You implied that other countries signed on because it benefited them and it doesn't benefit the US. But the US is not the only country to give up wealth.
You're worried that your country might give a few billion to some developing nations to help them transition to renewables?
Firstly, 100 billion. The floor was an expected 100 billion contribution. Secondly, if the US did give away that kind of money, all it would do is embolden ideologues like you to claim that other countries are doing more than the US is and happily ignore that they are doing it with our money.
You're obfuscating. The US never pledged to give 100 billion nor was it expected to. The goal of the fund was 100 billion, the US pledged $3, the EU pledged $4.7, and if you wanted to you could have pledged 0 and stayed signed on.
When the world starts transitioning from oil the price is going to plummet, when the price plummets the big expensive oilsands will be one of the first casualties.
When? Has been for decades.
When the price drops below the level where extraction is viable.
I'm guessing I have at lot more at stake than you my dear AC.
And? Being a victim does not make your claims more valid.
It does if my claim is that the US is not the only one to pay a price from taking action to combat climate change.
I'm not spinning excuses to justify why Alberta should exempt from taking action. I'm acting like a grownup and dealing with the situation
Quantaman of slashdot, the B52 of strawman and ad hominem attacks is claiming to be "Acting like a grownup."
Not lying to yourself about the seriousness of a situation and calling out people on BS is acting like a grownup.
Lying and obfuscating about the topic at hand is not.
my province needs to cut back on its emissions, it needs to use the time and wealth it has to diversify its economy.
Less impressive than if you followed your expectations for others and said, "I need to give money to developing nations like India and China so they can diversify their economy."
And after all that you still have not addressed the original points made.
I'm perfectly happy to have my country and province send money to help other nations diversify. Though from a practical standpoint my province's wealth is most effectively spent de-carbonizing our economy just because our economy is so carbon intensive.
I stole this Sig
He's part of that elite class of village idiots who contribute nothing of value to society in general, but whom the cultural elites latch onto as some sort of luminary because they sya the "right" things in the "right" way, as determined by those same self-appointed and annointed elites.
Seriously.
I cannot think of a single useful and original thought that I have ever heard the guy utter, but he sure does dazzle the political left - a bit of a better-spoken and more physically-fit Michael Moore sort who seems to have something important to say ---- until you analyze it later.
If the dirtbag is so seriously morally-blind that he equates the nation that has done more for human freedom than any other nation in huma history with a "rogue state" then he has absolutely nothing of value to contribute to any conversation. It's like somebody who cannot tell the difference between Hitler and Mother Teresa --- such a person has no analytical abilities and cannot be trusted to analyze anything.
No, water. Methane, the major component of natural gas, is 4 atoms of hydrogen and 1 of carbon. That yields 2 molecules of water and one of CO2 when burned. Much better than having 100% CO2 exhaust for coal which is pretty much 100% carbon.
The political establishment are those that have become fluent in the art of talking at length without saying anything at all; no commitments, no offense to anyone, etc. Unless of course you're one of the right wing nut politicians who doesn't feel bad preaching about abortion.
Trump is finally someone who says what's on his mind regardless of the group politics. Whether you agree with what he says or not, that takes a lot of balls and is to be respected. He doesn't spout conservative bullshit either, contrary to popular lore.
Don't knock yourselves out patting yourselves on the back. You won several minor elections in the grand scheme of things. After that spanking democrats took in 2016 it is expected that you would get some of your shit together a year later.
I mean lets be real. Virginia and Washington state where already blue in theory if not practice. Now that its official it just makes you a bigger target in 2018.
But 2018 is where it will matter. If Trump can convince voters to remove both republican and democrat obstacles in 2018 then things will finally be on track. The 2018 elections will probably be the turning point to see if Trump will win or lose in 2020. Those elections are what matters.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Well since the obama legacy for the most part has been scrapped, the truth is we are not running on the obama legacy. Almost all of the economic upturns happened after Trump was elected, with a great deal of them taking place before he was sworn in. Hopefully, soon the obama nightmare will be a few notes in the history book.
Make no mistake about the ACA, its is almost done. Any real incentives to keep it have been done away with. It's only a matter of time before it is replaced with a better healthcare plan. An no, none of the bills put forth so far would have kicked millions off healthcare. What it would allowed is for millions to opt out of healthcare since they would not longer be forced to buy it.
It is easy to say that you added millions to insurance rolls when those millions had no choice in the matter. What ACA proponents love to leave out is most of the time that insurance was substandard to the point of being useless because of high deductibles. You also conventionally leave out that this substandard insurance lowered the bar for everyone, even those with already good insurance. Lowered it to a point that that insurance was useless too because of high deductibles.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Ever heard of the broken window fallacy? How about investing in something else that actually does more than a one-time bump of revenue, like infrastructure? Or better yet - return $100 billion in taxes to the corporations in the first place for their own use on R&D?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Since OPEC Oil is linked to US dollar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... AND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
If Trump could convince anyone of anything, his approval ratings wouldn't be in the toilet.
Remember, Trump tweeted a dozen times about the Virginia election, praising Gillespie and attacking Northam, and Republicans in the rural areas basically said, "Nah, fuck that guy. What's on TV?" Meanwhile, Democrats did better in Republican districts than they have in 100 years.
Brother, there's a corrective wave coming that's going to take Donald Trump right off the map. Lots of people thought, "Well, how bad could he be?" and now that they know, they're ashamed they voted for him. Except for the racists. They're his hard-core base. And now that Flynn and his son are about to be indicted or flipped, the impotent rage of those aging racists will be wonderful to behold. I expect the number of aneurysms in the Southern states to spike next year.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So I'm supposed to argue something that isn't my point?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Do you have any basis of your claim? I have yet to see a link.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Planet is NOT a Private property of America/China/India
Casteism
Why doesn't he just fix the bits he doesn't like and re-name it.
Go take Civics 101 for what powers the POTUS has and does not have.
Thanks for the extremely useful advice, people everywhere must covet your wisdom, intelligence and ability to explain things in a rational way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The president may personally propose legislation in annual and special messages to Congress including the annual State of the Union address and joint sessions of Congress. If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Because war over oil is so much better? Pretty much every single war in the past decades involved the US in some way.
Your premise is wrong. The US do not bear the brunt of the agreement.
The US hasn't paid its full UN contribution for many years and it pays only 22% of the NATO budget, far less than its fair share by any measure. They always seem to get away with not paying their share by using strongarm tactics against smaller countries.
the average American is not participating in war over petty religious differences
Did you live a cave the last 15 years ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The president may personally propose legislation in annual and special messages to Congress including the annual State of the Union address and joint sessions of Congress. If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.
Note that the President can ask Congress / the Senate, but the President can't create laws on his or her own.
It's quite possible to disagree with me without being a white supremacist. It's not possible to be a white supremacist without disagreeing with me.
Your original claim was that "The Democrats openly dislike and work against them [white people]". Your cites included one from someone who wasn't necessarily a Democrat, and one a call for diversity that may have gone too far. Let's see, that's jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, five yards, using it as an ad hominem, ten yards, changing the topic ten yards, that's twenty-five yards, still second down.
As far as "the qualifications be related to the job" goes, there is solid evidence that white-appearing males tend to get interviews over others of similar qualifications. How do you know that all the white guys were hired because they were the best qualified?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Obama legacy isn't gone, despite Trump's frantic struggles to destroy it. We're still pretty much operating in an Obama economy. You said that some of the improvements happened during Obama's term.
The ACA is responsible for millions of people having health insurance, and the people I talk to who work with the poor think it's a great thing. It's far from perfect, and I'd like to see it replaces with something better, but I haven't seen anything better being considered. You appear to agree with me that millions would lose health insurance, except that you call it "opting out". Health insurance isn't a luxury like cable TV or bottled water. It's something most people are going to need some time, unless and until we get this crazy medical care system rebuilt.
ACA policies cover pre-existing conditions and can't be arbitrarily canceled because the policy holder gets sick, which were how previous policies were often useless.
My health insurance continues to be superb, and I haven't heard people complaining about their policies getting worse. Perhaps you live somewhere where the government deliberately tried to screw up the ACA, with bad results.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How about investing in something else that actually does more than a one-time bump of revenue, like infrastructure?
Yeah. How about investing in infrastructure? What do you think every other country in the world is going to be doing with that money? Did you stop, for even one second, to think about this? The whole point is to upgrade infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (to benefit everyone on this planet) and to build infrastructure to protect vulnerable populations (in their own countries) from the effects of Climate Change.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Also making the US the only country outside western Europe to be honest about actually intending to meet its goals under the agreement, and I doubt even some of the Europeans.
Some changes to the economy did happen during obama term. They happened at the ass end of it after we found out that Hilary lost. So they happened despite Obama, not because of him.
You should really stop trying to put your spin on what I said. Opting out isn't the same as losing insurance. Weather you or obama like it or not, there are some people that don't want to pay for health insurance. It is not the governments job to force them to do so. Once that burden has been lift, I think it already has, you will be free to chose not to have it if you don't want it. Not the same as losing it.
Here is the cold hard facts about Obama. His legacy is done. The only thing really left is Obamacare. The government has seen to leave it in place till it is replaced. It is just a matter of time before it is gone. It was a bad law so good riddance.
I think we are done here. Obama legacy is in the tank, and Trump is doing a pretty good job as president, despite his personality short comings. Yup, we are done here.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Yup, your TDS is in full swing. I bet you think that Trump is going to get impeached too. You should remove those blinders, take a step back, and take a good look around.
First fact. Hillary is never going to be president.
Second fact, Trump isn't going to get impeached.
Third fact. Despite the nonsense you just spouted Trump is doing a good job as president. He has some personally short comings that should be worked on but one you look past those you see he seems to have things well at hand.
An that is just a simple fact. You can bleat and wish otherwise but it won't change reality. Well I think we are done here too.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
I support an increase in global temperature. Iâ(TM)ve always been a little bit chilly.
Your original claim was that "The Democrats openly dislike and work against them [white people]". Your cites included one from someone who wasn't necessarily a Democrat, and one a call for diversity that may have gone too far. Let's see, that's jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, five yards, using it as an ad hominem, ten yards, changing the topic ten yards, that's twenty-five yards, still second down.
As far as "the qualifications be related to the job" goes, there is solid evidence that white-appearing males tend to get interviews over others of similar qualifications. How do you know that all the white guys were hired because they were the best qualified?
To be honest you only confirm my opinion. You describe blatant law breaking as "a call for diversity that may have gone too far". Not even did go too far, as it clearly did, just a maybe. I wonder what it would take for you to consider it as too far. Regarding your subtle implication that the existing white workers were maybe not qualified, they must have been. After all the leadership there is clearly against them and wants to see straight white applicants filtered out of the hiring process. Since you seem to want more citations here are a few:
https://www.realclearpolitics.... https://www.theguardian.com/us... http://www.newsweek.com/white-... plus the free pass they give extremeists from Black Panthers, La Raza, Antifa, and other shameful organizations that would all qualify as bad to the media if they were trying to help white people.
I'm reminded of an old college professor of mine who was so frustrated one day. He was a solid liberal (big surprise for a college professor I know) and had always been a fan of affirmative action and the like as he always figured that it impacted someone other than him and was for the greater good. Anyway his son had just graduated from the fire academy and was second in his class having just barely missed top cadet. However he couldn't find a job. The people being most aggressively recruited were minorities and especially women. He was stunned that affirmative action could produce bad outcomes. He was equally outraged that his son was discriminated against on the basis of his skin color or gender. Me personally, when I think of a fire I want the best possible, most qualified candidate to be in charge of rescuing me or my family. I don't want the quota who is less qualified.
I'm neither a D nor an R but in general I think being a straight white male means Democrats dislike me. Not literally every Democrat, but enough that I can't get behind them. They choose illegal immigrants kids (AKA dreamers) over actual citizens like my kids. They mistake the 1% being largely white for all white people are the 1% and have it easy. Indeed it's because they don't want the best person for the job and instead want to play social engineer that I want government to be as small as possible. They have clearly chosen their side and I'm not it.
Whether you agree with what he says or not, that takes a lot of balls and is to be respected. He doesn't spout conservative bullshit either, contrary to popular lore.
I respect that he says what he thinks, it's refreshing to cut through the shit for once. But I don't respect that he lies blatantly about pretty much everything, and has a pattern of stabbing his associates in the back as soon as they disagree with him. We should be embracing those who ask questions, not shun them. That is straight from the establishment playbook.
This behaviour never ends well. Has there ever been a case where an egotistic, narcissistic liar has succeeded at public office?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The president may personally propose legislation
Note that the President can ask Congress / the Senate, but the President can't create laws on his or her own.
Yeah, it's probably a bit much to ask the leader to, you know, lead.
If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.
My fellow Americans, As President I have set forth legislative proposals to Obamacare. Congress has refused to pass these vital amendments that I, as President, deem necessary to make healthcare fair for all Americans. I have called a special session of Congress to debate these important amendments in an effort to have them pass into law, for all Americans, God Bless America.
Leadership 101.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
He can't help it. He tried to type the more acurate 7.5%
But his iOS messed up as he was 'typing it wrong'.
Of course you can't source it cause it total bullshit. Most likely a sock puppet of that first idiot jwhyche.
Health insurance faces a problem called "adverse selection". What this means is that sick people want health insurance more than healthy people, and so the people who really want to sign up will be the most expensive. Insurance companies have to deal with that.
One way to deal is to exclude existing conditions, so that you can't retroactively insure yourself if you get sick. The effects of this are not good. It creates a class of people who essentially can't get health insurance and therefore can't get good health care. If they're on a policy that they had when they developed the condition, they're stuck on that policy, until the insurance company either cancels the policy because they cost too much or raises the premiums too high, or it's a work-related policy and someone loses his or her job because he or she can no longer perform due to illness.
Group coverage is the only way to avoid this problem. Given a group, all paying premiums, some people will cost a little and others will cost a lot, and it all balances out. for the insurance company. However, not everyone is part of a suitable group.
By expanding the group to include the entire population, covering from birth, we eliminate pre-existing conditions as a problem. We allow for the problem that some people will run up large medical bills by having healthy people in the pool. That way, people who are sick can get insurance and therefore health care.
Remove the individual mandate, and health insurance, and hence health care, becomes dramatically more expensive for the sick, and they won't be able to afford it. Opting out is the wrong phrase, as the price of insurance will force people out.
Repealing the ACA without provision for people with medical issues will kill people.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Cool - so the Paris Accord required countries to which we give the money to invest it into infrastructure? It's an entirely voluntary agreement to begin with, and missing the goals has no penalties... So we just give at least (it's a floor, not a ceiling) $100 billion a year and hope for the best?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Cool - so the Paris Accord required countries to which we give the money to invest it into infrastructure? It's an entirely voluntary agreement to begin with, and missing the goals has no penalties... So we just give at least (it's a floor, not a ceiling) $100 billion a year and hope for the best?
$100 billion is what all of the developed countries (and not just developed countries, China is providing $3 billion as well, and the city of Paris volunteered $1 million euros, in addition to France's contribution) have agreed to provide to the developing countries to help them achieve reduction goals. The U.S. contribution was $400 million a year.
If you think it's just the United States contributing that money, then you've been misled and you should really take a look at why your chosen information sources are deceiving you.
Here's a good FAQ for the agreement.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
FAQ
Fanatically anti-fanatical
From your link:
Because the agreement does not include binding emission targets, or binding financial commitments beyond those contained in the UNFCCC, and can be implemented on the basis of existing law, President Obama chose to approve it by executive action.
So nothing binding on the US, thus there should be zero problem with the US changing its targets and its financial commitments. There was nothing there to begin with. Just a big show. Per the FAQ you posted.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
From your link:
Because the agreement does not include binding emission targets, or binding financial commitments beyond those contained in the UNFCCC, and can be implemented on the basis of existing law, President Obama chose to approve it by executive action.
So nothing binding on the US, thus there should be zero problem with the US changing its targets and its financial commitments. There was nothing there to begin with. Just a big show. Per the FAQ you posted.
And? I didn't say there was a problem, I was pointing out that not participating is just foolishness.
Remember, Trump's reason for withdrawing from the agreement was that it was "totally unfair to the United States". As you correctly note that there's no possible way for the agreement to actually be unfair to the United States. What the treaty actually requires is that all signers set goals, work towards reaching the goals they set and report their progress.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The president may personally propose legislation
Note that the President can ask Congress / the Senate, but the President can't create laws on his or her own.
Yeah, it's probably a bit much to ask the leader to, you know, lead.
It's a bit much to expect you to open your mouth without spin, but c'est la vie. There is a big difference between the President creating laws and proposing legislation. Trump has petitioned Congress on numerous occasions to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.
My fellow Americans, As President I have set forth legislative proposals to Obamacare. Congress has refused to pass these vital amendments that I, as President, deem necessary to make healthcare fair for all Americans. I have called a special session of Congress to debate these important amendments in an effort to have them pass into law, for all Americans, God Bless America.
Leadership 101.
The skeptic in me wouldn't want Trump to come up with the specifics of a new national health care system. I whole heartedly agree that ObamaCare is broken. Affordable is a misnomer; my premiums went up by 25% last year and seems to be about the same rate this year for the same level of coverage. I don't know how to fix ObamaCare in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the middle-class needs.
It's a bit much to expect you to open your mouth without spin, but c'est la vie.
You really hurt my feelings with that. I think I might go to the doctor and get them checked, for free.
I've got no dog in this fight. I'm prepared to give Trump the benefit of the doubt however I just think it's sad that Billary and Trump were the best options the two party system could produce. You can get all upset and offended and throw out your pointless little jibes at me or you can see that I am making a observation based in valid concerns and try to have a reasoned discussion.
There is a big difference between the President creating laws and proposing legislation. Trump has petitioned Congress on numerous occasions to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
I know the president can't pass the laws he proposes, I wasn't suggesting that he does. There is nothing preventing him proposing legislation to fix it. Just saying repeal and replace is not leading, it's outsourcing the problem and complaining that no-one else is doing anything about it.
In other words he should put up or shut up.
The skeptic in me wouldn't want Trump to come up with the specifics of a new national health care system.
Why?
I whole heartedly agree that ObamaCare is broken. Affordable is a misnomer; my premiums went up by 25% last year and seems to be about the same rate this year for the same level of coverage.
However, it's not all broken. A bunch of it looks like corporate welfare to the insurance companies for a start. So why not pick out the broken bits and fix that first. Asking to chuck it out and then start again is about as stupid as a proposal as I have ever heard.
I don't know how to fix ObamaCare in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the middle-class needs.
Then you be the leader. Figure out what is wrong and propose changes in H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which is literally maybe an afternoon to read and understand, I just did and can already see the weak points. Write to the president and propose the changes yourself. Or are you just looking for a reason to whine and complain?
Citizenship 101.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I've got no dog in this fight. I'm prepared to give Trump the benefit of the doubt however I just think it's sad that Billary and Trump were the best options the two party system could produce. You can get all upset and offended and throw out your pointless little jibes at me or you can see that I am making a observation based in valid concerns and try to have a reasoned discussion.
We know that Hillary bought the Democrat nomination (as per Brazil), but I don't know how Trump got the Republican nomination. As a conservative, he wasn't in my top 3 choices.
There is a big difference between the President creating laws and proposing legislation. Trump has petitioned Congress on numerous occasions to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
I know the president can't pass the laws he proposes, I wasn't suggesting that he does. There is nothing preventing him proposing legislation to fix it. Just saying repeal and replace is not leading, it's outsourcing the problem and complaining that no-one else is doing anything about it.
In other words he should put up or shut up.
In other words you called me out for stating something you already knew and believe, just using different words (and furthermore accuse me of whining).
The skeptic in me wouldn't want Trump to come up with the specifics of a new national health care system.
Why?
Trump is out of touch with the middle class. As a business leader, I think he'd look out for what's best for his companies instead of what's best for Americans.
I whole heartedly agree that ObamaCare is broken. Affordable is a misnomer; my premiums went up by 25% last year and seems to be about the same rate this year for the same level of coverage.
However, it's not all broken. A bunch of it looks like corporate welfare to the insurance companies for a start. So why not pick out the broken bits and fix that first. Asking to chuck it out and then start again is about as stupid as a proposal as I have ever heard.
I always thought that repeal and replace was the wrong order. We first need a viable alternative, then we can dismantle ObamaCare.
I don't know how to fix ObamaCare in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the middle-class needs.
Then you be the leader. Figure out what is wrong and propose changes in H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which is literally maybe an afternoon to read and understand, I just did and can already see the weak points. Write to the president and propose the changes yourself. Or are you just looking for a reason to whine and complain?
Citizenship 101.
I have a full-time job and look over my kids while my wife is at her part-time job; I don't have the luxury of 4 hours to digest legalese. I have heard some of the weak points, such as millions of people will lose eligibility.
In other words you called me out for stating something you already knew and believe, just using different words (and furthermore accuse me of whining).
I was calling you out on what specific issue you have with the Affordable care act. Since you have no specific complaint what would you call it other than whining?
I always thought that repeal and replace was the wrong order. We first need a viable alternative, then we can dismantle ObamaCare.
So how would you know? He could cut and paste the entire affordable care act, call something else and say it helps whomever he wants to please and you wouldn't know.
Three clauses (Sec. 10407) (Sec. 10408) (Sec. 10409) makes it look like they really want to nail down where diabetes comes from, do you object to that? Health care for uninsured (Sec. 10504)? Taking care of Coal miners (Sec. 1556) with black lung and their family? Do you object to prohibiting genetic screening to refuse insurance? What about children's healthcare and preventing States from excluding them? That directly affects you. You want to repeal all that?
There are some warts here, however as someone with no dog in this fight, as act of law to look after people, this is pretty good, there is a lot more here than I mentioned. You certainly have a lot to lose, from what I've read so far, from it being repealed.
Is it because it's an Obama thing and it has to go? I don't understand how a country can be so polarized that they will destroy something that really does make america great again?
I'm not having a go at you or being a cunt to you, I'm trying to cut through the political bullshit to get to the issue. Conservatives raised valid points about this act regarding insurance company welfare and that has somehow transmuted to it's gotta go - Wouldn't it be easier just to fix it?
I have a full-time job and look over my kids while my wife is at her part-time job; I don't have the luxury of 4 hours to digest legalese. I have heard some of the weak points, such as millions of people will lose eligibility.
Excuses 101.
Let me put it another way, 20 sections of this law are related to children's health and could save you, personally a lot of money. Have you considered reading it just to understand what is in it for you? Isn't that worth a few hours so you are immune to the political dogma?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
In other words you called me out for stating something you already knew and believe, just using different words (and furthermore accuse me of whining).
I was calling you out on what specific issue you have with the Affordable care act. Since you have no specific complaint what would you call it other than whining?
Specific issues with ObamaCare? Premiums going up by 25% on an annual basis to get the same coverage. Forcing everyone to purchase a product. The whole we need to pass it so we'll have time to read it. I believe I mentioned at least some of these earlier in the thread.
I always thought that repeal and replace was the wrong order. We first need a viable alternative, then we can dismantle ObamaCare.
So how would you know? He could cut and paste the entire affordable care act, call something else and say it helps whomever he wants to please and you wouldn't know.
I know the talking points of ObamaCare. I could download the text of the two documents and run diff of them to see what's different.
Three clauses (Sec. 10407) (Sec. 10408) (Sec. 10409) makes it look like they really want to nail down where diabetes comes from, do you object to that? Health care for uninsured (Sec. 10504)? Taking care of Coal miners (Sec. 1556) with black lung and their family? Do you object to prohibiting genetic screening to refuse insurance? What about children's healthcare and preventing States from excluding them? That directly affects you. You want to repeal all that?
There are a few points of ObamaCare that I do like. My sister-in-law was only able to get coverage because of ObamaCare (pre-existing condition). According to ObamaCare, insurance is mandatory (or you pay an extra tax, despite Obama promising there wouldn't be a new tax), so section 10504 is not necessary. Besides, ERs already were obligated to stabilize patients who couldn't pay.
There are some warts here, however as someone with no dog in this fight, as act of law to look after people, this is pretty good, there is a lot more here than I mentioned. You certainly have a lot to lose, from what I've read so far, from it being repealed.
My biggest beefs are that it was forced through without giving our lawmakers time to read it and forcing everyone to get insurance. I also don't believe it to be fiscally sustainable.
Is it because it's an Obama thing and it has to go? I don't understand how a country can be so polarized that they will destroy something that really does make america great again?
As much as I dislike Obama, my love for the USA is greater. I was raised to respect the office of POTUS even if I disagree with whoever occupies the office.
I'm not having a go at you or being a cunt to you, I'm trying to cut through the political bullshit to get to the issue. Conservatives raised valid points about this act regarding insurance company welfare and that has somehow transmuted to it's gotta go - Wouldn't it be easier just to fix it?
It's so long that few people have read it in its entirety. It's easier to write a new document (yes, borrowing good ideas from ObamaCare) than to make an amendment.
I have a full-time job and look over my kids while my wife is at her part-time job; I don't have the luxury of 4 hours to digest legalese. I have heard some of the weak points, such as millions of people will lose eligibility.
Excuses 101.
Let me put it another way, 20 sections of this law are related to children's health and could save you, personally a lot of money. Have you considered reading it just to understand what is in it for you? Isn't that worth a few hours so you are immune to the political dogma?
Based on what my employer offers I do not qualify for any ObamaCare plan, so none of it is pertinent to me except that premiums go up because it's a mandatory product.