GG Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 That's what they said publicly. Yes. And why do you think that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 jimgeraghtyVerified account @jimgeraghty 4h4 hours ago More Looking out my window now… man, that did not take long for the effects of withdrawing from the Paris Accord to kick in. "Fighting climate changes means your lives have to get much worse" is a loser of a message. I don't get why that's so hard to figure out. How many of you have bought a carbon offset or offsets? If so, how much did you spend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 lol "it ends today". Very melodramatic. He's actually being more melodramatic than normal, which is no mean feat for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 ..........End of the Planet orgy at my place tonight everbody, BYOB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 It never would of been passed by 2/3rds in a Republican majority Senate. Got to keep the big energy company donors happy. The solution to that is: negotiate a deal that passes the Senate. It's not "Ignore the Constitutional requirements of the US government and announce at a press conference with the Chinese Premiere that we're going to abide by it 'Because I said so!'" Because that results in an "agreement" that's not an agreement, in being completely non-binding and having no legal standing. This should not be a difficult concept. You had eight years of a president ruling by executive fiat, to the point of unilaterally altering the law during press conferences, for no other reason than he thought Constitutional process and checks and balances were "obstructionist," so could be bypassed or ignored as deconstructive. But now that you've got an opposition president who's overturning those executive fiats by his own exercise of executive fiat, you're absolutely shocked to find out that so much of the past eight years has nothing resembling the authority of law. And it's not just the Paris Accords. We've already been through this with immigration and national monuments. Up on deck is gutting the abuse of Title IX as a substitute for the criminal code. We even saw it with the exercise of the nuclear option in the Senate. Why is anyone surprised that power is vested in the office and not the man, and when that power is abused the capacity for abuse conveys to the next holder of that office??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 And by the way... There are fifty-seven countries that haven't ratified the accords. Eight of them have signaled "approval," but not ratification. The US is not "one of three..." More than a quarter of the UN hasn't ratified them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 And by the way... There are fifty-seven countries that haven't ratified the accords. Eight of them have signaled "approval," but not ratification. The US is not "one of three..." More than a quarter of the UN hasn't ratified them. Trump is colluding with fifty seven foreign governments!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Trump is colluding with fifty seven foreign governments!? There's that number again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 The solution to that is: negotiate a deal that passes the Senate. It's not "Ignore the Constitutional requirements of the US government and announce at a press conference with the Chinese Premiere that we're going to abide by it 'Because I said so!'" Because that results in an "agreement" that's not an agreement, in being completely non-binding and having no legal standing. This should not be a difficult concept. You had eight years of a president ruling by executive fiat, to the point of unilaterally altering the law during press conferences, for no other reason than he thought Constitutional process and checks and balances were "obstructionist," so could be bypassed or ignored as deconstructive. But now that you've got an opposition president who's overturning those executive fiats by his own exercise of executive fiat, you're absolutely shocked to find out that so much of the past eight years has nothing resembling the authority of law. And it's not just the Paris Accords. We've already been through this with immigration and national monuments. Up on deck is gutting the abuse of Title IX as a substitute for the criminal code. We even saw it with the exercise of the nuclear option in the Senate. Why is anyone surprised that power is vested in the office and not the man, and when that power is abused the capacity for abuse conveys to the next holder of that office??? Obama only had the luxury of having the House and Senate for two years (a supermajority in the Senate for 70 something days in the Senate I believe) and spent most of that time on the ACA. I laugh when Republicans say Obama refused to work with them as they purposely obstructed anything the Democrats tried to do including Mitch McConnell saying their main goal was to make him a one term president right after the midterms in 2010. GOP senators and congressman were incentivized to obstruct in order to keep getting reelected. A trait the democratic party is now embracing and will continue to do so if they win back the house in 2018. So yes, Obama ruled by executive fiat as it was the only way he could get anything done and now Democrats are paying the price. Let's see what major legislative victories Trump can get done having both the House and the Senate at his disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 US corporations always say the wussiest politically correct thing as they think this makes then purer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 US corporations always say the wussiest politically correct thing as they think this makes then purer. Yes, it's called public relations. Should Ford motor company advertise the F150 as being able to fit more migrants in the bed to transport to the work site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) Rational scientific people don't think this was a smart decision. Lots of people in the industry, like Rex Tillerson, wanted us to stay in the agreement. Because whether Trump likes it or not the rest of the world is changing, and we will be locked out of the negotiations. American companies export to other countries and vice versa. We rely on international agreements like this in a global marketplace. Noot to mention the mountains of scientific evidence that climate change is real and it's manmade and we need to do something about it. There is nothing good about us pulling out.We were never in the agreement to begin with. Why do people think we were party to anything? We weren't. Edited June 2, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 I laugh when Republicans say Obama refused to work with them as they purposely obstructed anything the Democrats tried to do including Mitch McConnell saying their main goal was to make him a one term president right after the midterms in 2010. Laugh all you want. A thinking person...that is, a person who practices independent thought and doesn't simply repeat what they're told to repeat ...knows (1) that McConnell was saying what any rational competitor says after an ass-beating and (2) Obama told the GOP to go phuck themselves right after he was elected. Both are simple truths that thinking people understand. Obama poisoned the bipartisan well immediately. Because he's an entitled douchebag. Much like the current POTUS. Two entitled thin-skinned, insecure, moronic douchebags from the same cloth. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 And by the way... There are fifty-seven countries that haven't ratified the accords. Eight of them have signaled "approval," but not ratification. The US is not "one of three..." More than a quarter of the UN hasn't ratified them. That 'fact' was something released by the Left and spread immediately across social media Little surprise that it was repeated here. Gore 'INCONVENIENT SEQUEL' to Be Recut; Make Trump Bigger Villain... Left Melts... Hollywood Ballistic... WEATHER CHANNEL Apocalyptic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Rational scientific people don't think this was a smart decision. Lots of people in the industry, like Rex Tillerson, wanted us to stay in the agreement. Because whether Trump likes it or not the rest of the world is changing, and we will be locked out of the negotiations. American companies export to other countries and vice versa. We rely on international agreements like this in a global marketplace. Noot to mention the mountains of scientific evidence that climate change is real and it's manmade and we need to do something about it. There is nothing good about us pulling out. This is true...except that you're an idiot for conflating scientific issues with policy and governance issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Obama only had the luxury of having the House and Senate for two years (a supermajority in the Senate for 70 something days in the Senate I believe) and spent most of that time on the ACA. I laugh when Republicans say Obama refused to work with them as they purposely obstructed anything the Democrats tried to do including Mitch McConnell saying their main goal was to make him a one term president right after the midterms in 2010. GOP senators and congressman were incentivized to obstruct in order to keep getting reelected. A trait the democratic party is now embracing and will continue to do so if they win back the house in 2018. So yes, Obama ruled by executive fiat as it was the only way he could get anything done and now Democrats are paying the price. Let's see what major legislative victories Trump can get done having both the House and the Senate at his disposal. Did you even read what you wrote? It was okay for Obama to be authoritarian because he was checked by the House exercising its authority under the Constitution???? Never mind that the Republicans were irresponsible children...you're arguing that because they're irresponsible children, the Constitutional framework on which the government is based should be discarded for the President's convenience???? And then, having established a faux-Republic run according to the whims of men rather than the rule of law, you run a candidate with loooooong track record of petty entitlement, opportunism, and elitism, who is wholly incapable of handling the office as currently structured. And she turns out to be the most unelectable candidate in history, as she managed to lose to a Cheeto Dust Golem who if anything is even more reckless in a system that encourages the abuse of power THAT YOU JUST !@#$ING ADVOCATED!!!! How can people not see this? You can't argue "Obama had no choice because the Republicans are meanies," then immediately turn around and say in the same goddamn breath that Trump shouldn't be allowed. The powers attach to the office, not the man. If you're advocating for Obama's abuse of power in the face of Congressional intransigence, you are likewise arguing for Trump's exact same abuse, because the powers attach to the office, not the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) We were never in the agreement to begin with. Why do people think we were party to anything? We weren't. And by walking away from an agreement that was never agreed to, will force the rest of the world to come back to the US and negotiate an accord with US in the driver seat. This is the real reason that everyone is having a hissy fit. They know the US will dictate their own terms. Oh, the horrors. Edited June 2, 2017 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) Did you even read what you wrote? It was okay for Obama to be authoritarian because he was checked by the House exercising its authority under the Constitution???? Never mind that the Republicans were irresponsible children...you're arguing that because they're irresponsible children, the Constitutional framework on which the government is based should be discarded for the President's convenience???? And then, having established a faux-Republic run according to the whims of men rather than the rule of law, you run a candidate with loooooong track record of petty entitlement, opportunism, and elitism, who is wholly incapable of handling the office as currently structured. And she turns out to be the most unelectable candidate in history, as she managed to lose to a Cheeto Dust Golem who if anything is even more reckless in a system that encourages the abuse of power THAT YOU JUST !@#$ING ADVOCATED!!!! How can people not see this? You can't argue "Obama had no choice because the Republicans are meanies," then immediately turn around and say in the same goddamn breath that Trump shouldn't be allowed. The powers attach to the office, not the man. If you're advocating for Obama's abuse of power in the face of Congressional intransigence, you are likewise arguing for Trump's exact same abuse, because the powers attach to the office, not the man. Yes I read what I wrote and I didn't say I approved of what Obama did with his executive overreach nor complain about Trump attempting to do the same. I said democrats are paying the price because of Obama. Putting words in my mouth a little bit there. What do I or 45% of Democrats have to do with Hillary being the nominee? I didn't vote for her in the primaries as she was an awful candidate. Also, you see Trump a "Cheeto Dust Golem" while I see him as the only Republican in the field who would of beaten Clinton in the general. Edited June 2, 2017 by Doc Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Wow, that's a pretty dirty city. Is that Detroit or Macungie? I'm going out on a limb and guessing it's a city in a country that isn't required to cut emissions by 30% according to the Paris Agreement. And by the way, what happened to all the hysteria over the Kyoto Protocol?? I thought the environment was already permanently destroyed by Bush when he informed people the Senate rejected that one 97-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) There seems to be some debate on this: http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/01/authority-paris-agreement/ That's a interesting find 26 "The UNFCCC, adopted in 1992, is a treaty among governments that provides a foundation for the global climate effort. Enjoying near-universal membership, the convention was ratified by the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. The convention set a long-term objective (avoiding “dangerous human interference with the climate system”), established principles to guide the global effort, and committed all countries to “mitigate” climate change by reducing or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Agreement defines how countries will implement their UNFCCC commitments after 2020." "There is some question whether the president may withdraw from the UNFCCC without Senate approval as a matter of U.S. constitutional law. Unlike the Paris Agreement, which President Obama accepted under his executive authority, the UNFCCC was ratified by President George H.W. Bush after receiving the Senate’s consent " I do believe the Paris Agreement is a treaty that the Senate would have to ratify What is the Paris Climate Agreement? Each nation outlined its own plan to curb climate change. The plans are nonbinding, so countries could continue to make changes to their plans as they see fit. President Obama did not seek Congressional approval for the agreement; however, he did pledge to cut the United State's emissions by up to 28 percent by the year 2025 http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-trumps-decision-to-pull-out-of-the-paris-climate-agreement-means-for-the-us/70001816 Edited June 2, 2017 by ALF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts