|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 19 2017 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 06:29 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2017 06:27 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2017 06:21 Tachion wrote:
So Trump says he fired Comey based off of the letters of recommendation, then rumors are that Rosenstein was pissed and threatened to resign for shouldering the responsibility over the firing. Then Trump says he was gonna do it anyway even without the recommendations. Then Rosenstein says that Trump was gonna fire him even before he wrote the memo. Now we're back to Trump firing him on Rosenstein's recommendation? Is that right? I can hardly keep this shit straight. Why would Rosenstein be mad he got the blame? He wrote that letter of recommendation because Trump told him he wanted it as a cover. What did he think the letter was going to be used for Oo Because he was not told that it would be used as justification for the firing. He believed Trump had decided to do it and that would be the story. They write tons of internal memos. "I'm going to write a letter to Trump about how Comey should be fired, I will then get mad when that letter is shown as a reason for firing him" that just doesn't make sense. Surely if he didn't want to be connected to the Comey firing he would not write a letter urging him to be fired...
Think how much Trump and his group lie right now. They lied to him and he got played. He knows that now and that is why he appointed the special counsel. We have to remember that the civil servants in DC normally operate on good faith. A lot of goverment and law works like that.
|
On May 19 2017 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 06:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 19 2017 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2017 06:29 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2017 06:27 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2017 06:21 Tachion wrote:
So Trump says he fired Comey based off of the letters of recommendation, then rumors are that Rosenstein was pissed and threatened to resign for shouldering the responsibility over the firing. Then Trump says he was gonna do it anyway even without the recommendations. Then Rosenstein says that Trump was gonna fire him even before he wrote the memo. Now we're back to Trump firing him on Rosenstein's recommendation? Is that right? I can hardly keep this shit straight. Why would Rosenstein be mad he got the blame? He wrote that letter of recommendation because Trump told him he wanted it as a cover. What did he think the letter was going to be used for Oo Because he was not told that it would be used as justification for the firing. He believed Trump had decided to do it and that would be the story. They write tons of internal memos. "I'm going to write a letter to Trump about how Comey should be fired, I will then get mad when that letter is shown as a reason for firing him" that just doesn't make sense. Surely if he didn't want to be connected to the Comey firing he would not write a letter urging him to be fired... "What has employee X done that could result in him being fired" vs. "I'm going to fire employee X. What justifications can you think of" vs. "Do you think I should fire employee X and why" are all fairly different questions to be asked. Rosenstein seems to have said and thought it was 2) but Trump is now saying it's 3) which deflects a lot more blame onto Rosenstein (because Trump can't ever ever make a mistake cuz it hurts his widdle ego). Personally, if my boss asked me #2 then told the employee they had asked me #3 I would be SUPER pissed. In all 3 I would expect my response to be used as a reason for the firing but I guess that's just me.
If your boss told you I've decided to fire someone, what are some reasons, then told the person he only fired them because of your reasons and was going to keep them on, they are a shit boss.
So I guess nobody should have been surprised that Trump did that because he is shit boss incarnate.
|
Something awry definitely seems to be going on between Rosenstein and Trump, especially after the whole surprise special counsel move.
|
He wasn't hand picked by Trump and was supposed to be under Jeff Sessions. Sessions has to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, so Rosenstein had all the power to do this and he did. It is like every other civil servant that isn't part of the Trump camp. He isn't going to sack his career over just to cover for Trumps bad decision making.
|
On May 19 2017 06:53 Tachion wrote:
Something awry definitely seems to be going on between Rosenstein and Trump, especially after the whole surprise special counsel move.
Its interesting because if Trump fired Rosenstein, it would be many orders of magnitude worse now. Trump's hands are tied and he is basically stuck with everyone currently there.
|
|
|
I think that's probably not true. That would mean Trump has a shred of loyalty in him to anyone, which he definitely doesn't.
I guess it might be pure pigheadedness "I was right all along" driving him but he seems to prefer just bellyaching.
|
Calling it right now if Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement Europe, and Asia will slap tariffs on to certain US goods.
The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump.
The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same.
The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.
The US President has laughably described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China, a suggestion one of his advisers later described as an “exaggeration”.
Without specifically mentioning Mr Trump, Miguel Arias Cañete, the European Commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “Today more than ever, Europe stands by its long-term partners most vulnerable to climate change.
“We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement.
“We are all in, and our joint commitment to this agreement today is as in Paris: irreversible and non-negotiable.”
And Patrick Gomes, Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), said: “The longstanding, ongoing cooperation between the ACP group and the EU shows we are serious about addressing the impacts of climate change.
“Implementing the Paris Agreement is not only about ensuring the very survival of the 79 ACP countries, but also about building sustainable, resilient and prosperous economies and societies worldwide.”
They made the call at a United Nation’s climate change conference taking place in Bonn, Germany, ahead of forthcoming meetings of the G7 and G20 groups of world leaders.
The EU announced it would provide 800 million euros (about £680m) of support to ACP countries with about half to be used to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement contained pledges and aspirations but work is still being done to develop actual action that this achieve the goals.
The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
Some, like Defence Secretary James Mattis are believed to recognise the dangers posed by climate change – something that has been taken seriously by the Pentagon for years, given the threats to global security.
Others are thought to be in favour of staying in so that the US simply has a “seat at the table” during future talks and to avoid paying a diplomatic cost of withdrawing from a major international agreement.
When the US and China jointly ratified the deal, Barack Obama suggested it could become regarded as the moment humanity finally decided to save itself.
Source
|
Fox news seems to have a light idea of what an expert is. A few weeks ago they had Fabio explaining that california was a lawless mess due to the jail systems now this.
|
On May 19 2017 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Calling it right now if Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement Europe, and Asia will slap tariffs on to certain US goods. Show nested quote +The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump.
The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same.
The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.
The US President has laughably described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China, a suggestion one of his advisers later described as an “exaggeration”.
Without specifically mentioning Mr Trump, Miguel Arias Cañete, the European Commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “Today more than ever, Europe stands by its long-term partners most vulnerable to climate change.
“We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement.
“We are all in, and our joint commitment to this agreement today is as in Paris: irreversible and non-negotiable.”
And Patrick Gomes, Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), said: “The longstanding, ongoing cooperation between the ACP group and the EU shows we are serious about addressing the impacts of climate change.
“Implementing the Paris Agreement is not only about ensuring the very survival of the 79 ACP countries, but also about building sustainable, resilient and prosperous economies and societies worldwide.”
They made the call at a United Nation’s climate change conference taking place in Bonn, Germany, ahead of forthcoming meetings of the G7 and G20 groups of world leaders.
The EU announced it would provide 800 million euros (about £680m) of support to ACP countries with about half to be used to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement contained pledges and aspirations but work is still being done to develop actual action that this achieve the goals.
The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
Some, like Defence Secretary James Mattis are believed to recognise the dangers posed by climate change – something that has been taken seriously by the Pentagon for years, given the threats to global security.
Others are thought to be in favour of staying in so that the US simply has a “seat at the table” during future talks and to avoid paying a diplomatic cost of withdrawing from a major international agreement.
When the US and China jointly ratified the deal, Barack Obama suggested it could become regarded as the moment humanity finally decided to save itself. Source
All the players you cite are too interested in their own economic impact from customers to products to lift a finger. The worst he'll get is a few very strongly worded condemnations and some threats.
|
On May 19 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Calling it right now if Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement Europe, and Asia will slap tariffs on to certain US goods. The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump.
The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same.
The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.
The US President has laughably described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China, a suggestion one of his advisers later described as an “exaggeration”.
Without specifically mentioning Mr Trump, Miguel Arias Cañete, the European Commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “Today more than ever, Europe stands by its long-term partners most vulnerable to climate change.
“We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement.
“We are all in, and our joint commitment to this agreement today is as in Paris: irreversible and non-negotiable.”
And Patrick Gomes, Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), said: “The longstanding, ongoing cooperation between the ACP group and the EU shows we are serious about addressing the impacts of climate change.
“Implementing the Paris Agreement is not only about ensuring the very survival of the 79 ACP countries, but also about building sustainable, resilient and prosperous economies and societies worldwide.”
They made the call at a United Nation’s climate change conference taking place in Bonn, Germany, ahead of forthcoming meetings of the G7 and G20 groups of world leaders.
The EU announced it would provide 800 million euros (about £680m) of support to ACP countries with about half to be used to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement contained pledges and aspirations but work is still being done to develop actual action that this achieve the goals.
The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
Some, like Defence Secretary James Mattis are believed to recognise the dangers posed by climate change – something that has been taken seriously by the Pentagon for years, given the threats to global security.
Others are thought to be in favour of staying in so that the US simply has a “seat at the table” during future talks and to avoid paying a diplomatic cost of withdrawing from a major international agreement.
When the US and China jointly ratified the deal, Barack Obama suggested it could become regarded as the moment humanity finally decided to save itself. Source All the players you cite are too interested in their own economic impact from customers to products to lift a finger. The worst he'll get is a few very strongly worded condemnations and some threats.
Isn't this perspective ignoring the fact that lots of countries have participated in sanctions against various countries, despite the economic impact of doing so? Its not like we only apply economic sanctions in cases where we don't care.
|
On May 19 2017 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Calling it right now if Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement Europe, and Asia will slap tariffs on to certain US goods. The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump.
The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same.
The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.
The US President has laughably described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China, a suggestion one of his advisers later described as an “exaggeration”.
Without specifically mentioning Mr Trump, Miguel Arias Cañete, the European Commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “Today more than ever, Europe stands by its long-term partners most vulnerable to climate change.
“We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement.
“We are all in, and our joint commitment to this agreement today is as in Paris: irreversible and non-negotiable.”
And Patrick Gomes, Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), said: “The longstanding, ongoing cooperation between the ACP group and the EU shows we are serious about addressing the impacts of climate change.
“Implementing the Paris Agreement is not only about ensuring the very survival of the 79 ACP countries, but also about building sustainable, resilient and prosperous economies and societies worldwide.”
They made the call at a United Nation’s climate change conference taking place in Bonn, Germany, ahead of forthcoming meetings of the G7 and G20 groups of world leaders.
The EU announced it would provide 800 million euros (about £680m) of support to ACP countries with about half to be used to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement contained pledges and aspirations but work is still being done to develop actual action that this achieve the goals.
The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
Some, like Defence Secretary James Mattis are believed to recognise the dangers posed by climate change – something that has been taken seriously by the Pentagon for years, given the threats to global security.
Others are thought to be in favour of staying in so that the US simply has a “seat at the table” during future talks and to avoid paying a diplomatic cost of withdrawing from a major international agreement.
When the US and China jointly ratified the deal, Barack Obama suggested it could become regarded as the moment humanity finally decided to save itself. Source All the players you cite are too interested in their own economic impact from customers to products to lift a finger. The worst he'll get is a few very strongly worded condemnations and some threats. Isn't this perspective ignoring the fact that lots of countries have participated in sanctions against various countries, despite the economic impact of doing so? Its not like we only apply economic sanctions in cases where we don't care.
I have yet to see sanctions of any meaningful kind enacted on the basis of carbon output. Humanitarian abuses and as a tool in diplomacy short of going to war, for sure.
|
On May 19 2017 07:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On May 19 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Calling it right now if Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement Europe, and Asia will slap tariffs on to certain US goods. The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump.
The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same.
The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.
The US President has laughably described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China, a suggestion one of his advisers later described as an “exaggeration”.
Without specifically mentioning Mr Trump, Miguel Arias Cañete, the European Commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “Today more than ever, Europe stands by its long-term partners most vulnerable to climate change.
“We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement.
“We are all in, and our joint commitment to this agreement today is as in Paris: irreversible and non-negotiable.”
And Patrick Gomes, Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), said: “The longstanding, ongoing cooperation between the ACP group and the EU shows we are serious about addressing the impacts of climate change.
“Implementing the Paris Agreement is not only about ensuring the very survival of the 79 ACP countries, but also about building sustainable, resilient and prosperous economies and societies worldwide.”
They made the call at a United Nation’s climate change conference taking place in Bonn, Germany, ahead of forthcoming meetings of the G7 and G20 groups of world leaders.
The EU announced it would provide 800 million euros (about £680m) of support to ACP countries with about half to be used to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement contained pledges and aspirations but work is still being done to develop actual action that this achieve the goals.
The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
Some, like Defence Secretary James Mattis are believed to recognise the dangers posed by climate change – something that has been taken seriously by the Pentagon for years, given the threats to global security.
Others are thought to be in favour of staying in so that the US simply has a “seat at the table” during future talks and to avoid paying a diplomatic cost of withdrawing from a major international agreement.
When the US and China jointly ratified the deal, Barack Obama suggested it could become regarded as the moment humanity finally decided to save itself. Source All the players you cite are too interested in their own economic impact from customers to products to lift a finger. The worst he'll get is a few very strongly worded condemnations and some threats. Isn't this perspective ignoring the fact that lots of countries have participated in sanctions against various countries, despite the economic impact of doing so? Its not like we only apply economic sanctions in cases where we don't care. I have yet to see sanctions of any meaningful kind enacted on the basis of carbon output. Humanitarian abuses and as a tool in diplomacy short of going to war, for sure.
Other countries, who see global warming as an enormously bad, terrible thing, would be more likely to see carbon output as a bigger deal than you do, right? You gotta keep in mind that many governments are operating under the assumption that global warming will be very damaging if not reduced as much as possible.
|
On May 19 2017 07:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 07:47 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On May 19 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Calling it right now if Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement Europe, and Asia will slap tariffs on to certain US goods. The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump.
The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same.
The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.
The US President has laughably described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China, a suggestion one of his advisers later described as an “exaggeration”.
Without specifically mentioning Mr Trump, Miguel Arias Cañete, the European Commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “Today more than ever, Europe stands by its long-term partners most vulnerable to climate change.
“We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement.
“We are all in, and our joint commitment to this agreement today is as in Paris: irreversible and non-negotiable.”
And Patrick Gomes, Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), said: “The longstanding, ongoing cooperation between the ACP group and the EU shows we are serious about addressing the impacts of climate change.
“Implementing the Paris Agreement is not only about ensuring the very survival of the 79 ACP countries, but also about building sustainable, resilient and prosperous economies and societies worldwide.”
They made the call at a United Nation’s climate change conference taking place in Bonn, Germany, ahead of forthcoming meetings of the G7 and G20 groups of world leaders.
The EU announced it would provide 800 million euros (about £680m) of support to ACP countries with about half to be used to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement contained pledges and aspirations but work is still being done to develop actual action that this achieve the goals.
The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
Some, like Defence Secretary James Mattis are believed to recognise the dangers posed by climate change – something that has been taken seriously by the Pentagon for years, given the threats to global security.
Others are thought to be in favour of staying in so that the US simply has a “seat at the table” during future talks and to avoid paying a diplomatic cost of withdrawing from a major international agreement.
When the US and China jointly ratified the deal, Barack Obama suggested it could become regarded as the moment humanity finally decided to save itself. Source All the players you cite are too interested in their own economic impact from customers to products to lift a finger. The worst he'll get is a few very strongly worded condemnations and some threats. Isn't this perspective ignoring the fact that lots of countries have participated in sanctions against various countries, despite the economic impact of doing so? Its not like we only apply economic sanctions in cases where we don't care. I have yet to see sanctions of any meaningful kind enacted on the basis of carbon output. Humanitarian abuses and as a tool in diplomacy short of going to war, for sure. Other countries, who see global warming as an enormously bad, terrible thing, would be more likely to see carbon output as a bigger deal than you do, right? You gotta keep in mind that many governments are operating under the assumption that global warming will be very damaging if not reduced as much as possible.
But actually doing something about it and letting voters know they will have to suffer ... this has been hard enough globally to do with ones own citizens, let alone try to raise sanctions for others. When I heard StealthBlue mention Asia, I chuckled to think of India and China pressing the USA to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. Physician, heal thyself.
|
On May 19 2017 06:09 Nevuk wrote:Mostly that he literally said "believe me, there's no collusion"
Reminds me of a bit on Trump that Stewart did on Colbert's show where the ending was something like "You know somebody is lying when they say 'believe me'"
On May 19 2017 06:25 Amui wrote:See if you work for trump, always be on the lookout for the bus.
Uncle of mine used to work for him in the Casino business. High level stuff to where Trump had a nickname for him. Swears up and down he's a loon.
|
On May 19 2017 08:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 07:54 Mohdoo wrote:On May 19 2017 07:47 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On May 19 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Calling it right now if Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement Europe, and Asia will slap tariffs on to certain US goods. The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump.
The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same.
The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.
The US President has laughably described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China, a suggestion one of his advisers later described as an “exaggeration”.
Without specifically mentioning Mr Trump, Miguel Arias Cañete, the European Commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “Today more than ever, Europe stands by its long-term partners most vulnerable to climate change.
“We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement.
“We are all in, and our joint commitment to this agreement today is as in Paris: irreversible and non-negotiable.”
And Patrick Gomes, Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), said: “The longstanding, ongoing cooperation between the ACP group and the EU shows we are serious about addressing the impacts of climate change.
“Implementing the Paris Agreement is not only about ensuring the very survival of the 79 ACP countries, but also about building sustainable, resilient and prosperous economies and societies worldwide.”
They made the call at a United Nation’s climate change conference taking place in Bonn, Germany, ahead of forthcoming meetings of the G7 and G20 groups of world leaders.
The EU announced it would provide 800 million euros (about £680m) of support to ACP countries with about half to be used to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement contained pledges and aspirations but work is still being done to develop actual action that this achieve the goals.
The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
Some, like Defence Secretary James Mattis are believed to recognise the dangers posed by climate change – something that has been taken seriously by the Pentagon for years, given the threats to global security.
Others are thought to be in favour of staying in so that the US simply has a “seat at the table” during future talks and to avoid paying a diplomatic cost of withdrawing from a major international agreement.
When the US and China jointly ratified the deal, Barack Obama suggested it could become regarded as the moment humanity finally decided to save itself. Source All the players you cite are too interested in their own economic impact from customers to products to lift a finger. The worst he'll get is a few very strongly worded condemnations and some threats. Isn't this perspective ignoring the fact that lots of countries have participated in sanctions against various countries, despite the economic impact of doing so? Its not like we only apply economic sanctions in cases where we don't care. I have yet to see sanctions of any meaningful kind enacted on the basis of carbon output. Humanitarian abuses and as a tool in diplomacy short of going to war, for sure. Other countries, who see global warming as an enormously bad, terrible thing, would be more likely to see carbon output as a bigger deal than you do, right? You gotta keep in mind that many governments are operating under the assumption that global warming will be very damaging if not reduced as much as possible. But actually doing something about it and letting voters know they will have to suffer ... this has been hard enough globally to do with ones own citizens, let alone try to raise sanctions for others. When I heard StealthBlue mention Asia, I chuckled to think of India and China pressing the USA to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. Physician, heal thyself.
China takes pollution and carbon dioxide emission very seriously.
India's CO2 emission is like 1/4 of the US with 5x the population.
|
|
|
On May 19 2017 08:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 08:07 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 07:54 Mohdoo wrote:On May 19 2017 07:47 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:On May 19 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Calling it right now if Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement Europe, and Asia will slap tariffs on to certain US goods. The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump.
The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same.
The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.
The US President has laughably described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China, a suggestion one of his advisers later described as an “exaggeration”.
Without specifically mentioning Mr Trump, Miguel Arias Cañete, the European Commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “Today more than ever, Europe stands by its long-term partners most vulnerable to climate change.
“We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement.
“We are all in, and our joint commitment to this agreement today is as in Paris: irreversible and non-negotiable.”
And Patrick Gomes, Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), said: “The longstanding, ongoing cooperation between the ACP group and the EU shows we are serious about addressing the impacts of climate change.
“Implementing the Paris Agreement is not only about ensuring the very survival of the 79 ACP countries, but also about building sustainable, resilient and prosperous economies and societies worldwide.”
They made the call at a United Nation’s climate change conference taking place in Bonn, Germany, ahead of forthcoming meetings of the G7 and G20 groups of world leaders.
The EU announced it would provide 800 million euros (about £680m) of support to ACP countries with about half to be used to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement contained pledges and aspirations but work is still being done to develop actual action that this achieve the goals.
The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
Some, like Defence Secretary James Mattis are believed to recognise the dangers posed by climate change – something that has been taken seriously by the Pentagon for years, given the threats to global security.
Others are thought to be in favour of staying in so that the US simply has a “seat at the table” during future talks and to avoid paying a diplomatic cost of withdrawing from a major international agreement.
When the US and China jointly ratified the deal, Barack Obama suggested it could become regarded as the moment humanity finally decided to save itself. Source All the players you cite are too interested in their own economic impact from customers to products to lift a finger. The worst he'll get is a few very strongly worded condemnations and some threats. Isn't this perspective ignoring the fact that lots of countries have participated in sanctions against various countries, despite the economic impact of doing so? Its not like we only apply economic sanctions in cases where we don't care. I have yet to see sanctions of any meaningful kind enacted on the basis of carbon output. Humanitarian abuses and as a tool in diplomacy short of going to war, for sure. Other countries, who see global warming as an enormously bad, terrible thing, would be more likely to see carbon output as a bigger deal than you do, right? You gotta keep in mind that many governments are operating under the assumption that global warming will be very damaging if not reduced as much as possible. But actually doing something about it and letting voters know they will have to suffer ... this has been hard enough globally to do with ones own citizens, let alone try to raise sanctions for others. When I heard StealthBlue mention Asia, I chuckled to think of India and China pressing the USA to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. Physician, heal thyself. China takes pollution and carbon dioxide emission very seriously. India's CO2 emission is like 1/4 of the US with 5x the population.
I look forward to the day when China produces more alternative energy than us and make the tech for themselves. We will be clinging on to coal and oil, rather than doing this.
http://valleycentral.com/news/local/new-wind-farm-in-cameron-county-opens
Those damn job killing regulations. Damn 30 million is tax revenue.
|
Norway28716 Posts
On May 19 2017 02:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 01:56 hunts wrote:On May 19 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 00:45 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2017 00:37 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 00:31 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2017 00:25 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2017 00:22 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 19 2017 00:18 Mohdoo wrote:On May 19 2017 00:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
adds to the dumpster fire. paul ryan denied it (fake news, as dangles would say), until WaPo told him they had the audio recording. I guess I don't like the idea of wapo trying to add to a dumpster fire rather than just giving us good shit. The comey memos were good shit. They didn't need to muddy their own water with stuff that people can argue is totally misleading. It gives Danglars full confidence to just plug his ears to the stuff that has been proved true. But because of this crap, people like Danglars don't even believe other stuff that has since been validated and totally true. Paul Ryan's spokeperson's response: when he first asked the offices of Ryan and McCarthy for comment, they denied that any such conversation had ever taken place. He then told them he had a transcript of the conversation, and they claimed it was fake. Only after they were told that Entous actually had a recording did they move to the position that it had all been a big joke. Yeah, I definitely believe them 100% about their "big joke." I would love to hear the audio, though, as that's the one way to clear this up for certain. So by denying the authenticity of the transcript, the WaPo was therefore justified in pretending it was anything other than a joke. This Russia stuff is just getting out of hand. Trump makes fool of himself, media asks America to hold their beers. The transcript is of a recording the post has. They have Ryan and McCarthy on tape. The people involved denied it until the post dropped the bomb that they had the tape. Then they admitted it was true. If it was all a joke, why not just admit it and provide context? Why deny it and then say the transcript is fake? Why hear fake news and then accuse others of lying as if it excuses the fact that they misreported the story with the intent of deceiving the reader? I'm sorry but I can't take your argument seriously at all. You keep saying fake news like that makes your argument. The Post has a recording, which is confirmed to be accurate by someone in the room at the time. They call Ryan and McCarthy, who both deny it until the Post informs them that they have a recording. They write that exact story. There is nothing fake about this. They are not misleading their readers. They have a tape of a discussion that in the current context is news worthy. The entire political team for NPR talked about the story on their podcast and agreed that in the current climate, the recording is bad optics for Ryan and GOP leadership. And that was news worthy because there could be more. If you don’t like it, that is your problem. They made it out to be a serious accusation and serious hush-up. If you can't see the joke and the misreporting, I'm done here. I hope today to tell at least two jokes having to do with "X must be in league with the Russians" (and I expect none of them to go home to their wives and wonder why Dang made that accusations). I'm sorry but most people don't see the joke. I don't either. A joke wouldn't involve making everyone swear to never talk about it, saying no leaks, and implying you are a family if no leaks one time. A joke wouldn't involve denying it ever happened up until presented with evidence that it did. A joke would actually be in some way funny. Making a joke about "X must be in league with the russians" is not in any way the same as asserting someone with ties to russia is taking money from them, who the happens to be under investigation for exactly that. What you said there is just a bad strawman. I'm more in the line where if people laugh, that means they understood it as a joke. Only conspiracy theorists would say if the chairman of the Bilderberg Group laughed at controlling the world, it was a tacit admission and not a joke. Go ask ten of your friends to read the transcript and see if "most people don't see the joke." I refuse to believe everybody's this humorless because Russia.
I agree it was a joke, or at least that it's highly plausible/probable that it was one. Still, if they first claimed there was no such conversation, then adjusted the story to 'that's not how it played out' when it's confirmed that there was such a conversation, and then when transcripts/tapes happen go 'it was a joke' then I also think the whole thing is just stupid on their behalf, and it makes what sounds like an innocent joke end up looking suspicious.
It's kinda like, 15 years ago, I caught testie maphacking, because he told his scv to mine minerals from a patch that he had no vision of. Posted replay on battlereports.com, flamed him hard, invested all my reputation into ruining his reputation. And then, some guy let me know about an actually plausible way for testie to have done this without a maphack. I was scared as hell that testie was gonna come say that this was how he did it. But instead Testie's defense was 'this replay is fake, not me playing', and then that just completely confirmed that he was a hacker because while I wasn't 100% certain it was hack, I was certainly 100% certain it was him playing. So I agree with you, but I also think Ryan et al's stupidity is what made it a story.
|
This thread would be better if more people were able to parallel political happenings to Starcraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
