EPTI find the timing of this announcement interesting. Trump could have withdrew on day 1, but waited 4 months and after the EU trip to announce. If he was truly interested in a renegotiation of the deal it would have been something he prioritized sooner or at least talking about. Took years to get this existing deal in place. This will definitely be a 2020 campaign issue for sure.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7725
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
I find the timing of this announcement interesting. Trump could have withdrew on day 1, but waited 4 months and after the EU trip to announce. If he was truly interested in a renegotiation of the deal it would have been something he prioritized sooner or at least talking about. Took years to get this existing deal in place. This will definitely be a 2020 campaign issue for sure. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 02 2017 06:53 Toadesstern wrote: i mean there's even coal companies that urged Trump to not quit the deal because they think it will hurt them. And we're talking money here and not some prospects about the (a bit more far away) future: Sure it's not a clear picture as you have people going both ways but if you have people going both ways WITHIN the coal industry you already know how the rest of the world minus the maybe ~15-20% on the far right in the US sees it. I think it's a good decision despite splits in coal corporation opinions. Also, as my liberal friends are fond of pointing out, certain multinationals you mentioned have conflicts of interest. For example, they want to avoid punitive measures enacted abroad for their support, others are big natural gas producers that are favored in this deal, and there's a whole lot of subsidies and incentives up for grabs in the deal. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:02 LuckyFool wrote: Trump was speaking to his base 100% during that speech earlier today, and fulfilling a major campaign promise. Not surprised at all. Also not surprised by the progressive response. The usual suspects in my social media circles were crying a river, same apocalyptic climate change talking points you often hear about how rising sea levels will end mankind as we know it and how we're a stones throw away from runaway global warming etc. I find the timing of this announcement interesting. Trump could have withdrew on day 1, but waited 4 months and after the EU trip to announce. If he was truly interested in a renegotiation of the deal it would have been something he prioritized sooner or at least talking about. Took years to get this existing deal in place. This will definitely be a 2020 campaign issue for sure. I was worried at the delay. I thought Ivanka & allies would prevail. Maybe part of the delay is their firm opposition, or maybe Trump's team just want to space the good news of fulfilled campaign promises to reap multiple positive media cycles for their base. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 02 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote: Problem being that specifically those things americans don't give a shit about. There's no emission controls for the most part (trucks like in the US are almost prohibitively expensive in europe), trump wants to make coal big again etc etc. So no, that can't simply start with those things, because these are things that are not negotiable to the average american. People like xDaunt would get a brain aneurysm if they'd understood how much a F-250 etc would cost to run in europe. I'm quite aware of just how DGAF Americans are about the real issue. Unfortunately making a fake "JOBS" argument just empowers green scammers and feeds the anti-Paris narrative. The problem could be said to go deeper, in how hostile Americans tend to be to basic science. But let's not compound the problem by empowering liars. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12485 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote: I was worried at the delay. I thought Ivanka & allies would prevail. Maybe part of the delay is their firm opposition, or maybe Trump's team just want to space the good news of fulfilled campaign promises to reap multiple positive media cycles for their base. Sounds like someone should have told you that 70% of Americans disagreed with the decision by now, right? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:04 Danglars wrote: I think it's a good decision despite splits in coal corporation opinions. Also, as my liberal friends are fond of pointing out, certain multinationals you mentioned have conflicts of interest. For example, they want to avoid punitive measures enacted abroad for their support, others are big natural gas producers that are favored in this deal, and there's a whole lot of subsidies and incentives up for grabs in the deal. well yeah but you mention punitive measures yourself. With politicians over here already talking about only allowing stuff that's up to EU standards when it comes to this... wasn't a big part of Trump's agenda that he wants to reduce the trade deficit? How do you end up thinking this is good if you believe punitive measures could be a thing | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:07 LegalLord wrote: I'm quite aware of just how DGAF Americans are about the real issue. Unfortunately making a fake "JOBS" argument just empowers green scammers and feeds the anti-Paris narrative. The problem could be said to go deeper, in how hostile Americans tend to be to basic science. But let's not compound the problem by empowering liars. Just because some green initiatives might be ineffective doesn't mean the whole industry is bad and they shouldn't get any money. There's tons of support for oil companies and they have way more dirty laundry and scams. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
It's a big deal. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:11 Toadesstern wrote: well yeah but you mention punitive measures yourself. With politicians over here already talking about only allowing stuff that's up to EU standards when it comes to this... wasn't a big part of Trump's agenda that he wants to reduce the trade deficit? How do you end up thinking this is good if you believe punitive measures could be a thing I'm trying to gather your point but I can't. Can you rephrase? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46226 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:02 LuckyFool wrote: Trump was speaking to his base 100% during that speech earlier today, and fulfilling a major campaign promise. Not surprised at all. Also not surprised by the progressive response. The usual suspects in my social media circles were crying a river, same apocalyptic climate change talking points you often hear about how rising sea levels will end mankind as we know it and how we're a stones throw away from runaway global warming etc. So basically 90+% of the world and the experts in the scientific community? Was pulling out of the Paris agreement really a "major campaign promise"? I honestly don't remember, but I don't think it was nearly as major/ advertised as building the wall (failed promise so far), repealing Obamacare (failed promise so far), replacing Obamacare (failed promise so far), or even finding a better healthcare plan than Obamacare (definitely a failed promise, as ACA >>> AHCA). I don't think he's done much to put "America First" or to "Make America Great Again"; and in fact, I'd argue that him pulling out of the Paris agreement instead of helping to lead the march on climate change is doing the opposite of helping America at all. Denial of science and facts tends to make countries regress... | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote: I don't know what DGAF means. There's also the problem that while i agree that BS like solar roads etc shouldn't be even considered, there's plenty of companies making solar panels etc. Not everyone in the solar sector is fake. DGAF = don't give a fuck And yet they ride off that high of "omg jobs n green and innovation" because the hype is too good for enticing the poorly informed, well-meaning individuals who want to think they're doing good. Some of those work in government. Subsidies for genuinely valuable green tech is good, but needs far more accountability. Not just allowing subsidy queens to line their pockets would be desirable. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:09 Nebuchad wrote: Sounds like someone should have told you that 70% of Americans disagreed with the decision by now, right? How many knew what the decision entailed? We talked Russia hacking enough that 59% of Dems believed Russia tampered with the actual vote despite no evidence. Give Trump et al some time to explain costs and get back to me. Free lunch is about as popular as freely just deciding to limiting pollution. Until you see the price tag. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:13 Danglars wrote: I'm trying to gather your point but I can't. Can you rephrase? you mention that some of the coal corporations are in favor of the paris accord because they're afraid of punitive actions from the EU / China, etc. One of the big issues for Trump is that he wants to reduce the trade deficit. If punitive actions actually happen that surely will hurt American exports making the trade deficit only worse, won't it? The coal corporations that disagree with the paris accord would be the ones that are only making business inside the US while the ones that wanted Trump to keep it up would be the ones that deal abroad as well according to you if I understood you correctly? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46226 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:16 LegalLord wrote: DGAF = don't give a fuck And yet they ride off that high of "omg jobs n green and innovation" because the hype is too good for enticing the poorly informed, well-meaning individuals who want to think they're doing good. Some of those work in government. Subsidies for genuinely valuable green tech is good, but needs far more accountability. Not just allowing subsidy queens to line their pockets would be desirable. What makes you think they're doing bad? Solar energy is fantastic, and it's definitely been helpful for job growth and having less reliance on fossil fuels: "U.S. Solar Jobs Jumped Almost 25% In the Past Year" http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ "Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined ... Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000." https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#6bad6a832800 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 02 2017 06:59 Plansix wrote: I remember the day he discovered Milo and the alt-right in this thread. He talked about how he saw himself really agreeing with these alt right folks. It was so long ago, but we knew this day would come. The day science was a tool of the left. Are you going to contribute something or just relentlessly shitpost stuff that is neither accurate nor applicable? You certainly haven't endeavored to take my argument head on. Where is kwizach when y'all need him? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:12 LegalLord wrote: As far as a reference for how much a fraction of a degree can matter, NASA has some nice info there. Link It's a big deal. You expect me to believe these NASA bozos when the heritage foundation already weighed in? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46226 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12485 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote: How many knew what the decision entailed? We talked Russia hacking enough that 59% of Dems believed Russia tampered with the actual vote despite no evidence. Give Trump et al some time to explain costs and get back to me. Free lunch is about as popular as freely just deciding to limiting pollution. Until you see the price tag. No one cares dude. Do you think everyone who said they approved of Trump pulling out knew what the decision entailed? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On June 02 2017 07:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Predictably, Elon Musk is done with Trump's bullshit and climate change denial: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/trump-climate-change-elon-musk/528906/?utm_source=atlfb Again hardly surprising that companies/people who have international business distance themselves from trump. It's not just Elon Musk, it's Microsoft, Exxon and god knows who too. It's interesting to see though that people seem to believe trump more than they believe the people actually running said companies when they say "no mate, fuck off - that's the opposite of good for business". Makes you wonder what it takes to get them to not immediately label everything as fake news. | ||
| ||
