|
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 June 02 2017 05:30 Tien wrote:
So basically Trump sacrificed his geopolitical capital for his domestic re-election capital right?
Trump had geopolitical capital? Did some countries think he was only kidding with the populism and America first rhetoric?
|
This move is more of a blow to American standing in the world than a blow to the actual environment. The next President is going to have to go on an apology tour that would make Obama jealous...
|
That's another thing that is interesting: who's gonna negotiate with trump?
He has proven multiple times that he just doesn't give a shit about agreements, treaties and the like. Negotiating with someone who has a track record of not giving a shit about any of them (while harping on about other countries doing the same) really isn't a person you do deals with.
You wait until he's gone, and then start to repair what's left.
|
Also noting the largest economy in the country, California say it will uphold the Paris Agreement but also push further.
|
On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet).
sadly some people ignore reality. and even when factually proven wrong, as you have been repeatedly.
you cannot convince people of truth when they willfully choose to ignore it, as you have.
it is quite literall ynot possible to convince you, as you've chosen to ignore contrary facts; and actively endorse lying and using obfuscation over seeking the truth.
so you've chosen to hurt the world in your own willful ignorance, and cause great suffering. shame on you.
accuracy of policies is not dependent on whether people who have no understanding of them think they're right or not.
just as your opinion on whether or not the proof of fermat's last theorem is correct is worthless (presumably, unless you happen to have a math phd or somesuch).
learn some wisdom so you stop hurting the world with your ignorance.
I know you will not listen to this; but sadly, when facts and evidence cannot work I have nothing else to offer.
|
On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions.
Dude we just posted a map that shows the majority of citizens disagree with pulling out of the agreement in Every. Single. State. and disagree at 70% overall, tell us more about how we need to convince our fellow citizens.
|
On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet).
Best for America now, ok maybe. I don't see how you can argue that this is better for American's children or the world. Like the only justification I can see is that you don't agree greenhouse gases is harmful to the planet and/or it's more important to save/make money than it is to consider less pollution.
|
|
|
On June 02 2017 05:32 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet). You see the irony of disagreeing with something that literally the whole world already agrees on and then ask us to convince anybody, right? Everybody is already convinced, Trump's voterbase aside. The accuracy has already been established. You can try to invert reality as much as you want but that's a fact. The US is alone in this, absolutely isolated. The consensus of all nations on this planet on this issue probably is unprecedented.
If everybody was convinced, why did Trump get elected with the platform he did? If everybody thinks climate change is this serious (and they don't--last Gallup poll I saw ranks it below #10 in issues confronting America), why did other considerations trump his positions on CC? You have to convince the American citizen that this is important enough and it's the right measure.
|
|
|
On June 02 2017 05:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:33 TheDwf wrote:On June 02 2017 05:32 Pandemona wrote:
He did say he is going to re join just wants to re negotiate. So clearly doesn't think US can get to the 26-28% or there is more behind the agreement Obama had in place which he thinks going to fuck US up. He never said he was leaving for good or anything just said he bailing on the agreement in place now. No one is going to renegotiate with Trump lol NPR was reporting people in the EU are already calling it the G6.
Trump and America are a schizophrenic bipolar girlfriend. All they do is change their mind erratically and cause trouble. "No matter how hot she is, someone, somewhere, is tired of her shit" comes to mind. The world isn't going to wait on America because they're having a temper tantrum episode.
|
On June 02 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:27 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On June 02 2017 05:23 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:16 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:09 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:07 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:
[quote]
Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. It isn't a treaty and it was voluntary. It imposed nothing. making it completely a symbolic gesture. I don't understand the blowback to this one, bunch of people want a reason to be mad I guess Because we told everyone else who signed on to fuck off, don’t need the agreement anymore because a new president is in town. Other countries do not like it when they work hard on agreements, spend political capital and then you walk away because you have a new president. They don’t want to make deals after that because they don’t want to plan around your fickle people. We gave our word and then we backed out. So the next deal everyone will wonder “is this deal good long term, or will some asshole promise to blow it up to win an election?” The business community was planning on this agreement, deals were being made. People were working on plans, all which are up in the air now because Trump decided this thing was bad. What, we had an an election. An unexpected candidate won. How is a country supposed to "keep it's word" when it's government radically can change every 4 years. Because that is how our nation and others have done in for over 200 years. And when we do decide to pull out of agreements, it impacts us for a decade or more. Welcome to world politics, were no one gives a shit about your local politics or if an unexpected candidate won. They just want you to keep your promises or not deal with you. Ya I can agree with that, but the USA is the #1 economy in the world, people are going to "deal" with the US one way or another. California alone is #6 gdp in the world lol. I'm sure we can do what we want, and we aren't murdering innocents here, we are simply backing out of an ineffectual symbolic gesture. Again, I don't see the point of the outrage. the fact you dont understand it doesnt meant its not legit. This could be used as a response to a lot of biomajor’s posts. Especially on the topic of civics.
The outrage over this decision shows an ideological fanaticism. I'm not knowledgeable on the details of this agreement, so feel free to educate me if it will significantly change the temperature.
|
On June 02 2017 05:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:32 Nyxisto wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet). You see the irony of disagreeing with something that literally the whole world already agrees on and then ask us to convince anybody, right? Everybody is already convinced, Trump's voterbase aside. The accuracy has already been established. You can try to invert reality as much as you want but that's a fact. The US is alone in this, absolutely isolated. The consensus of all nations on this planet on this issue probably is unprecedented. If everybody was convinced, why did Trump get elected with the platform he did? If everybody thinks climate change is this serious (and they don't--last Gallup poll I saw ranks it below #10 in issues confronting America), why did other considerations trump his positions on CC? You have to convince the American citizen that this is important enough and it's the right measure.
Do you purposely ignore the map that shows the result, or is it just fake news?
|
Seriously the worst trade deal ever in the history of the world up to now was trading in Obama for Trump.
|
On June 02 2017 05:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:32 Nyxisto wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet). You see the irony of disagreeing with something that literally the whole world already agrees on and then ask us to convince anybody, right? Everybody is already convinced, Trump's voterbase aside. The accuracy has already been established. You can try to invert reality as much as you want but that's a fact. The US is alone in this, absolutely isolated. The consensus of all nations on this planet on this issue probably is unprecedented. If everybody was convinced, why did Trump get elected with the platform he did? If everybody thinks climate change is this serious (and they don't--last Gallup poll I saw ranks it below #10 in issues confronting America), why did other considerations trump his positions on CC? You have to convince the American citizen that this is important enough and it's the right measure.
As if you couldn't elect someone on themes A, B, C while disagreeing on themes X, Y, Z... Especially in your bipartite political system.
|
On June 02 2017 05:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:32 Nyxisto wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet). You see the irony of disagreeing with something that literally the whole world already agrees on and then ask us to convince anybody, right? Everybody is already convinced, Trump's voterbase aside. The accuracy has already been established. You can try to invert reality as much as you want but that's a fact. The US is alone in this, absolutely isolated. The consensus of all nations on this planet on this issue probably is unprecedented. If everybody was convinced, why did Trump get elected with the platform he did? If everybody thinks climate change is this serious (and they don't--last Gallup poll I saw ranks it below #10 in issues confronting America), why did other considerations trump his positions on CC? You have to convince the American citizen that this is important enough and it's the right measure.
that questoin has already been answered; because people are stupid and incompetent and unable to vote that intelligently  (as has been repeatedly proven)
and they've relied on a long-term campaign of willful misinformation; which is supplied more freely as they do not punish those who lie to them, and in fact supported the most extreme liar ever.
|
On June 02 2017 05:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:32 Nyxisto wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet). You see the irony of disagreeing with something that literally the whole world already agrees on and then ask us to convince anybody, right? Everybody is already convinced, Trump's voterbase aside. The accuracy has already been established. You can try to invert reality as much as you want but that's a fact. The US is alone in this, absolutely isolated. The consensus of all nations on this planet on this issue probably is unprecedented. If everybody was convinced, why did Trump get elected with the platform he did? If everybody thinks climate change is this serious (and they don't--last Gallup poll I saw ranks it below #10 in issues confronting America)
You just answered your own question. People voted for him because they thought there were bigger issues than this one. It doesn't imply that they agreed with him on this issue, as you're now pretending with this "well he got elected saying this". Even Trump didn't agree with himself on every word.
|
On June 02 2017 05:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:32 Nyxisto wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet). You see the irony of disagreeing with something that literally the whole world already agrees on and then ask us to convince anybody, right? Everybody is already convinced, Trump's voterbase aside. The accuracy has already been established. You can try to invert reality as much as you want but that's a fact. The US is alone in this, absolutely isolated. The consensus of all nations on this planet on this issue probably is unprecedented. If everybody was convinced, why did Trump get elected with the platform he did? If everybody thinks climate change is this serious (and they don't--last Gallup poll I saw ranks it below #10 in issues confronting America), why did other considerations trump his positions on CC? You have to convince the American citizen that this is important enough and it's the right measure.
There's a difference between saying that most of the world/ most of the country are in agreement that climate change is real/ Paris agreement is useful (nearly every country on Earth, and over 70% of Americans: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/21/trump-wants-to-dump-the-paris-climate-deal-but-71-percent-of-americans-support-it-survey-finds/?utm_term=.6d6a8c52b79b )- which is true to say- and then to also say that perhaps it might not rank as super-high on the list for conservatives as some other things (which is also true to say). But the fact that the latter is true doesn't invalidate the former, which is what was previously stated.
|
On June 02 2017 05:38 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:27 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On June 02 2017 05:23 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:16 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:09 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:07 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. It isn't a treaty and it was voluntary. It imposed nothing. making it completely a symbolic gesture. I don't understand the blowback to this one, bunch of people want a reason to be mad I guess Because we told everyone else who signed on to fuck off, don’t need the agreement anymore because a new president is in town. Other countries do not like it when they work hard on agreements, spend political capital and then you walk away because you have a new president. They don’t want to make deals after that because they don’t want to plan around your fickle people. We gave our word and then we backed out. So the next deal everyone will wonder “is this deal good long term, or will some asshole promise to blow it up to win an election?” The business community was planning on this agreement, deals were being made. People were working on plans, all which are up in the air now because Trump decided this thing was bad. What, we had an an election. An unexpected candidate won. How is a country supposed to "keep it's word" when it's government radically can change every 4 years. Because that is how our nation and others have done in for over 200 years. And when we do decide to pull out of agreements, it impacts us for a decade or more. Welcome to world politics, were no one gives a shit about your local politics or if an unexpected candidate won. They just want you to keep your promises or not deal with you. Ya I can agree with that, but the USA is the #1 economy in the world, people are going to "deal" with the US one way or another. California alone is #6 gdp in the world lol. I'm sure we can do what we want, and we aren't murdering innocents here, we are simply backing out of an ineffectual symbolic gesture. Again, I don't see the point of the outrage. the fact you dont understand it doesnt meant its not legit. This could be used as a response to a lot of biomajor’s posts. Especially on the topic of civics. The outrage over this decision shows an ideological fanaticism. I'm not knowledgeable on the details of this agreement, so feel free to educate me if it will significantly change the temperature.
Your post sounds a lot like "I don't know anything about this subject but you're wrong anyway".
|
On June 02 2017 05:36 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet). sadly some people ignore reality. and even when factually proven wrong, as you have been repeatedly. you cannot convince people of truth when they willfully choose to ignore it, as you have. it is quite literall ynot possible to convince you, as you've chosen to ignore contrary facts; and actively endorse lying and using obfuscation over seeking the truth. so you've chosen to hurt the world in your own willful ignorance, and cause great suffering. shame on you. accuracy of policies is not dependent on whether people who have no understanding of them think they're right or not. just as your opinion on whether or not the proof of fermat's last theorem is correct is worthless (presumably, unless you happen to have a math phd or somesuch). learn some wisdom so you stop hurting the world with your ignorance. I know you will not listen to this; but sadly, when facts and evidence cannot work I have nothing else to offer.
You've always confused rhetoric and your own appraisal for universal judgment. You may allege all sorts of mal intent to me, it's your right. I've said exactly why I supported Trump in it. It's up to you to sort out why you think your fellow citizens are so bad. It might involve a wee bit more than "shame on you," accusations of ignorance, accusations of ignoring reality itself. If you have a secret desire to see Trump reascend the seat in 2020, you're actually doing a stellar job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
