|
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 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. 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. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor?
Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 02 2017 05:26 Tien wrote:
Can anyone that studied this agreement seriously tell me if this is good or bad?
Does this treaty do anything?
Trump leaving the agreement is particularly shitty. This may be the stupidest policy decision he's had yet.
|
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.
You want to hold an opinion and then don’t want any of the work involved with backing up your beliefs. Just go to NPR.org and read up. They have a bunch of articles about why the agreement is good. Don’t ask others to educate you.
|
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.
The outrage would be less justified if he actually supported it with some sort of justification instead of blabbering mostly lies, quoting out of context and self praise.
|
On June 02 2017 05:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:36 zlefin 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). 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.
I wish I could do better; but my ability to tolerate fools is limited. as is my ability to tolerate those who hurt others; and those who willfully chose to ignore facts. being a saint is beyond my ability.
and they're not just accusations, they're facts. which you again may choose to ignore, as you've chosen to ignore others.
I don't confuse my own appraisal for universal judgment at all. I know how to tell what's fact and what isn't, what is uncertain and what is certain, and the margins of those certainties.
It's just hard to deal with people who make the world a worse places and will not listen to anything.
|
|
|
On June 02 2017 05:36 Nebuchad 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. 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.
If a presidential vote happened after every poll, you'd have a great point. The party that ran on withdrawing us from the Paris agreement and attacking the political mechanisms driving these discussions won the two elected branches of government. You'll have a shot in november 2018 to show this stuff matters and rebuke Trump on this. Good luck.
|
On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. 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. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way.
Especially when you dishonestly pretend that the consequences of climate change are going to be super minor for the world by choosing a small number of 0.17 to represent the change as if you didn't know of the actual consequences.
|
On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. 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. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way.
Except for the US there will never be a "deal" that's (what you perceive as) fair compared to other countries, because you always have to do more based on what you're already emitting.
There's no "fair deal for the US" that's inherently unfair to pretty much the rest of the world. Because fair deal in this case means that the biggest stinker has to do the least in comparison to the rest of the world.
Good luck with that.
|
On June 02 2017 05:37 NeoIllusions 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). 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.
I just heard a speech from our president basically going over why it's better for America's children. The world one you'll just have to think longer on why getting everyone to sign up to agreements nobody will honor and patting each other on the back regresses discourse on climate change.
|
On June 02 2017 05:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:36 Nebuchad 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. 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. If a presidential vote happened after every poll, you'd have a great point. The party that ran on withdrawing us from the Paris agreement and attacking the political mechanisms driving these discussions won the two elected branches of government. You'll have a shot in november 2018 to show this stuff matters and rebuke Trump on this. Good luck.
I do have a great point regardless, cause you were saying that we need to convince the people as if the people were on your side of this argument. They aren't.
|
On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. 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. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way.
For those who are not from the US, the Heritage Foundation is conservative SuperPACs that focuses on winning elections. They were a big part of Trumps camp. Any evidence they provide should be see through that lens.
|
I'd believe a link from infowars before I would the heritage foundation.
|
|
|
I mean the deal is always going to be crappy for the US but the world isn't going to be able to deal with global warming if the whole world isn't all putting their shoulder to the grindstone and pushing together. And The US is going to be the one with the biggest impact in the world. Just don't hear much of the world complaining about the US being the world police when it comes to doing something togeather.
|
That isn't really that suprising, you don't get hundreds of countries back on the table because the special snowflake feels like it.
|
On June 02 2017 05:48 Nevuk wrote:
I'd believe a link from infowars before I would the heritage foundation.
If you want some hot, anti-science bullshit, the Heritage Foundation is the place to go.
|
This suggests Trump actually thinks this will help get him re-elected? who is feeding him this info
|
On June 02 2017 05:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:29 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. 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. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100? As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor? Have you actually looked at the costs? What I hate about the global warming argument is that the green zealots, in their relentless pursuit of reducing carbon emissions, have a bad tendency to not look at the cost side of the equation. The position of most people on my side of the argument isn't "fuck the environment, let's burn some coal!" It's "does the expected benefit of an action warrant its cost?" The Paris Accord is a very hard sell when looking at it this way. For those who are not from the US, the Heritage Foundation is conservative SuperPACs that focuses on winning elections. They were a big part of Trumps camp. Any evidence they provide should be see through that lens.
The fox saying there should be no wire mesh around the chicken. How surprising.
|
On June 02 2017 05:49 m4ini wrote:That isn't really that suprising, you don't get hundreds of countries back on the table because the special snowflake feels like it.
I think the logic is:
1. Trump is president
2. Everyone unconditionally needs the US more than the rest of the world needs the US
3. No one would ever band together to apply pressure on us
4. So let's just do whatever the fuck we want
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
