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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Perhaps, his predecessor shouldn't have used his pen and phone to make bad decisions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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! --
Ah, the usual bullshit justifications of the unsecintific denialst shill, piss off back to your coal mine ypu dumb cunt.
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
It's funny how obsessed those who currently explore space are with "not contaminating planets/moons with microbes from earth", but at the same time plan for settling on Mars.
Quite obviously, once you bring humans to Mars, you bring trillions of microbes along with them. And chances are that those microbes have a better chance of adapting to and pro-creating in their new environment than their hosts.
To me, it would seem much more reasonable to _first_ bring microbes to Mars, help them to get settled, and only then try settling with humans, once we know that at least microbes can survive for a reasonable time.
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
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.
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.
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?
Rejecting the AGW hypothesis has never been stated as a reason for rejecting the accords. Forcing US to pay for it while not forcing other nations, which pollute on the same level, to pay for it was the reason given.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
Or it could just be fun. In my experience, there's usually a large body of water below.
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.
Not true. They could be reflectively raping each other, have a continuous circle of rape, have multiple disjoint circles of rape, have intersecting graphs of rape, etc.
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!
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".
You have to show that moving to renewable sources of energy will cost the USA more over the long term. The fact that solar and wind energy sources are coming down in cost very quickly suggests that complying with the accord will actually benefit the USA.
And, if you want to talk about the USA spending more than other countries, how about we retire about 1/3 of our military and bring almost all forces back to the USA?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
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.
Either that, or, depending on what happenes between now and then, those humans living kind of of crowded in a small band around the equator may praise us as the ones who kept them from dying all out on a snowball earth.
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.
Don't be like Trump - if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, stay quiet until you do.
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.
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...
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.
Don't be like Trump - if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, stay quiet until you do.
Ditto.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
... 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.
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.
"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.
Actual train of thought generated by story:
Siberia is cold and nothing on TV. Let's rile up stupid American Trump supporters with inane arguments. Earn ruble and increase chance of warming Siberia.
Play Command HQ online
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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
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
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.
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.
I never heard the reason for its rejection being that AGW is false. No one advocating its rejection said so.
Well apart from the guy who runs the country, who was responsible it's rejection, who said so himself with his own words: https://twitter.com/realdonald...
Or is this fake news?
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.
It has no pussy to grab of course he does not understand it. Then again I do not think he really understands pussy either.
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!
Why doesn't he just fix the bits he doesn't like and re-name it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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.
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
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.
The fake news was them reporting about the koi pool. "Trump killing the fishies by dumping his entire box!" when the video clearly shows Abe dumping his box first while Trump follows his example. It was all over the place. The media has such a hate for Trump that they can't stop themselves from fake news. Because it satisfies their emotional state. They can't stop.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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
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.)
You are literally the most stupid person you know.
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)
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.
No one asked the U.s to pay for anything.
How dumb are you?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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."
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
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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! --
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.
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.
"Virtue signalling" is a term asshats use to signal they are asshats.
Only boring people are ever bored.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
The fake news was them reporting about the koi pool.
Are you replying to the right thread? My response was to the claim that no-one who rejected the Paris accord was advocating that AGW is false. I sourced a quote that says otherwise directly from the man himself. No news fake or real is involved.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
So this message is marked as Troll... that's hysterical.
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.