hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,224
|
Post by hoyarooter on May 31, 2017 21:10:34 GMT -5
Coincidentally, a move that helps Putin. Shocking. And a move that he promised those who voted for him he would do. So shocking only in the sense that a politician is keeping a promise. Which increases the number of promises he has kept to what, three?
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 31, 2017 23:26:08 GMT -5
What a group: Nicaragua, US, and Syria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 7:20:37 GMT -5
What a group: Nicaragua, US, and Syria. And Nicaragua doesn't support it because they don't think it goes far enough.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 1, 2017 11:37:26 GMT -5
We lose all credibility as a world leader, if we pull out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 12:02:16 GMT -5
This is an article about a full page ad taken from the NYT in 2009 urging "aggressive climate action" from the Obama Administration. I'm sure you will be shocked to find out... ___________
As negotiators headed to Copenhagen in December 2009 to forge a global climate pact, concerned U.S. business leaders and liberal luminaries took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for aggressive climate action. In an open letter to President Obama and the U.S. Congress, they declared: “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”
One of the signatories of that letter: Donald Trump.
Also signed by Trump’s three adult children, the letter called for passage of U.S. climate legislation, investment in the clean energy economy, and leadership to inspire the rest of the world to join the fight against climate change.
“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” the letter tells the president and Congress. “Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet.”
In every conceivable way, the letter contradicts Trump’s current stance on climate policy. On the campaign trail, Trump has said he is “not a big believer in man-made climate change.” Last fall, after Obama described climate change as a major threat to the United States and the world, Trump said that was “one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard in politics — in the history of politics as I know it.”
The 2009 ad also argues that a shift to clean energy “will spur economic growth” and “create new energy jobs.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 12:10:07 GMT -5
This is an article about a full page ad taken from the NYT in 2009 urging "aggressive climate action" from the Obama Administration. I'm sure you will be shocked to find out... ___________ As negotiators headed to Copenhagen in December 2009 to forge a global climate pact, concerned U.S. business leaders and liberal luminaries took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for aggressive climate action. In an open letter to President Obama and the U.S. Congress, they declared: “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.” One of the signatories of that letter: Donald Trump. Also signed by Trump’s three adult children, the letter called for passage of U.S. climate legislation, investment in the clean energy economy, and leadership to inspire the rest of the world to join the fight against climate change. “We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” the letter tells the president and Congress. “Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet.” In every conceivable way, the letter contradicts Trump’s current stance on climate policy. On the campaign trail, Trump has said he is “not a big believer in man-made climate change.” Last fall, after Obama described climate change as a major threat to the United States and the world, Trump said that was “one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard in politics — in the history of politics as I know it.” The 2009 ad also argues that a shift to clean energy “will spur economic growth” and “create new energy jobs.” Are you shocked? He was pro-choice before he was pro-life. He was anti-Wikileaks before he was pro-Wikileaks. He was for climate action before he was against it. He was for expanding access to health care before he was against it. He was for clean energy before he was pro-coal. He was for draining the swamp before he started stockpiling it. The guy is a scam artist who has never held a belief for more than ten minutes. His position is whatever is expedient in the moment. Or whatever keeps him out of hot water with his Russian handlers. And tens of millions of Americans fell for his charade. And tens of millions will continue to support him, facts be damned.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 1, 2017 12:48:14 GMT -5
The guy is a scam artist who has never held a belief for more than ten minutes. His position is whatever is expedient in the moment. Or whatever keeps him out of hot water with his Russian handlers.Follow the money.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 1, 2017 18:49:24 GMT -5
Kudos to President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Accord, despite the loud voices of the media and the left.
Paris Accord is based on each country's self-declared goal with no way of enforcement. The U.S., with about 14% of the world's emissions of CO2 would be committed to about a quarter reduction from 2005 levels while China, with about 29%, would essentially have to do nothing before 2030. Same with India.
If there is any agreement between nations on climate change it should be done by treaty with the approval of the Senate. Today shows the perils of ruling by executive order and agreements, rather than by law.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Jun 1, 2017 19:52:11 GMT -5
This is an article about a full page ad taken from the NYT in 2009 urging "aggressive climate action" from the Obama Administration. I'm sure you will be shocked to find out... ___________ As negotiators headed to Copenhagen in December 2009 to forge a global climate pact, concerned U.S. business leaders and liberal luminaries took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for aggressive climate action. In an open letter to President Obama and the U.S. Congress, they declared: “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.” One of the signatories of that letter: Donald Trump. Also signed by Trump’s three adult children, the letter called for passage of U.S. climate legislation, investment in the clean energy economy, and leadership to inspire the rest of the world to join the fight against climate change. “We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” the letter tells the president and Congress. “Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet.” In every conceivable way, the letter contradicts Trump’s current stance on climate policy. On the campaign trail, Trump has said he is “not a big believer in man-made climate change.” Last fall, after Obama described climate change as a major threat to the United States and the world, Trump said that was “one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard in politics — in the history of politics as I know it.” The 2009 ad also argues that a shift to clean energy “will spur economic growth” and “create new energy jobs.” Are you shocked? He was pro-choice before he was pro-life. He was anti-Wikileaks before he was pro-Wikileaks. He was for climate action before he was against it. He was for expanding access to health care before he was against it. He was for clean energy before he was pro-coal. He was for draining the swamp before he started stockpiling it. The guy is a scam artist who has never held a belief for more than ten minutes. His position is whatever is expedient in the moment. Or whatever keeps him out of hot water with his Russian handlers. And tens of millions of Americans fell for his charade. And tens of millions will continue to support him, facts be damned. 1) It is very possible to be pro-alternative energy and anti-Paris accord. 2) Some people fell for a charade. Others wanted to send a message to "regular" politicians. I think the majority held their nose and voted against a lying, thieving harpy. He was still the least bad choice among those two.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,224
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jun 1, 2017 20:05:23 GMT -5
Are you shocked? He was pro-choice before he was pro-life. He was anti-Wikileaks before he was pro-Wikileaks. He was for climate action before he was against it. He was for expanding access to health care before he was against it. He was for clean energy before he was pro-coal. He was for draining the swamp before he started stockpiling it. The guy is a scam artist who has never held a belief for more than ten minutes. His position is whatever is expedient in the moment. Or whatever keeps him out of hot water with his Russian handlers. And tens of millions of Americans fell for his charade. And tens of millions will continue to support him, facts be damned. 1) It is very possible to be pro-alternative energy and anti-Paris accord. 2) Some people fell for a charade. Others wanted to send a message to "regular" politicians. I think the majority held their nose and voted against a lying, thieving harpy. He was still the least bad choice among those two. 1 is absolutely true. But what indication do we have that President Trump supports alternative energy, unless "coal" has become an alternative energy source? On 2, reasonable people can differ. I would say better a lying harpy than a lying clown.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Jun 1, 2017 20:36:25 GMT -5
Paris Accord is based on each country's self-declared goal with no way of enforcement. The U.S., with about 14% of the world's emissions of CO2 would be committed to about a quarter reduction from 2005 levels while China, with about 29%, would essentially have to do nothing before 2030. Same with India. I'm confused. Is the Paris Accord too lenient (name your own goals and no penalties if not met) or too harsh (we have to do more than China/India)?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,331
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 1, 2017 22:43:55 GMT -5
Paris Accord is based on each country's self-declared goal with no way of enforcement. The U.S., with about 14% of the world's emissions of CO2 would be committed to about a quarter reduction from 2005 levels while China, with about 29%, would essentially have to do nothing before 2030. Same with India. I'm confused. Is the Paris Accord too lenient (name your own goals and no penalties if not met) or too harsh (we have to do more than China/India)? Accord or no accord, we should be taking a leading role in reducing emissions but, instead, President Trump is championing the coal industry. He's like a record executive after Napster blew up the physical media part of the industry still trying to charge $17/CD for things that could be downloaded for free due to availability and lack of regulation. He's just not getting the memo. Ironically, he's also for lack of financial regulation because that worked out so well a decade ago. You'd think the "leading from behind" people would be more vocal than ever and, yet, they're strangely silent. It's one thing to have pulled out of the Paris Accord. It's another for the President of the United States to, as per usual, decide he knows better than a community of people that specialize in such things. Today it's scientists. A few weeks ago it was diplomats and ambassadors when Trump said that the Middle East isn't as complex as people think. The same genius that was baffled by the complexity of health care saying that no one knew. As per usual, many, many people know. It's the President that is characteristically clueless and uninterested in educating himself. You'd think a man as poorly informed as President Trump would do his damnedest to take the advice and counsel of the best and brightest in the areas in which he's deficient. Instead, this man chooses to bully those that are more experienced and knowledgeable and unilaterally make changes to policy or direction on things about which he knows very little, likely to the long term detriment of the people who he's supposed to be representing.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,331
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 1, 2017 22:49:23 GMT -5
1) It is very possible to be pro-alternative energy and anti-Paris accord. 2) Some people fell for a charade. Others wanted to send a message to "regular" politicians. I think the majority held their nose and voted against a lying, thieving harpy. He was still the least bad choice among those two. 1 is absolutely true. But what indication do we have that President Trump supports alternative energy, unless "coal" has become an alternative energy source? On 2, reasonable people can differ. I would say better a lying harpy than a lying clown. What charade? The guy is an ass. He's always been an ass. He is, was and continues to be full of crap and has a complete lack of conviction on any issue. Those deficiencies are the most consistent parts of his character. There are people that didn't know that? I don't think so. I think people knew that and didn't care because he was "an outsider" and not a traditional politician. Hillary would likely have been terrible. But she, likely, wouldn't have degraded the relationships with our allies to the degree that Trump has. I only say that because what he's "accomplished" in that regard is unprecedented.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Jun 1, 2017 22:58:11 GMT -5
Kudos to President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Accord, despite the loud voices of the media and the left. Paris Accord is based on each country's self-declared goal with no way of enforcement. The U.S., with about 14% of the world's emissions of CO2 would be committed to about a quarter reduction from 2005 levels while China, with about 29%, would essentially have to do nothing before 2030. Same with India. If there is any agreement between nations on climate change it should be done by treaty with the approval of the Senate. Today shows the perils of ruling by executive order and agreements, rather than by law. Agreed with your last sentiment. For your previous statement: one statistic I wanted to point out is that the US has the highest % of the world's emissions if you look at it per capita. Additionally, for China at least, they are already in the midst of a movement to move away from fossil fuels. Their smog problem is terrible and their government cannot avoid it anymore. I agree that it seems weird that India and China have an additional 13 years but the Paris Accord was a step forward to further discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 9:02:16 GMT -5
Kudos to President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Accord, despite the loud voices of the media and the left. Paris Accord is based on each country's self-declared goal with no way of enforcement. The U.S., with about 14% of the world's emissions of CO2 would be committed to about a quarter reduction from 2005 levels while China, with about 29%, would essentially have to do nothing before 2030. Same with India. If there is any agreement between nations on climate change it should be done by treaty with the approval of the Senate. Today shows the perils of ruling by executive order and agreements, rather than by law. Because It was mostly a symbolic measure and as you point out Trump could have kept the alliance, strengthened our relationships, and still did whatever he wanted without penalty. China has 1.5 billion people and the US has 300 million. Those numbers look a bit different when you put them in proper context. If you think it's perilous to rule by executive order than I'm sure your very concerned with Trump signing more of them in his first 4 months than any President since the Great Depression even with majorities in both houses... Heck he even bragged about it, listed as an accomplishment, as did MSM giant Fox and other RW media....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 9:29:10 GMT -5
Are you shocked? He was pro-choice before he was pro-life. He was anti-Wikileaks before he was pro-Wikileaks. He was for climate action before he was against it. He was for expanding access to health care before he was against it. He was for clean energy before he was pro-coal. He was for draining the swamp before he started stockpiling it. The guy is a scam artist who has never held a belief for more than ten minutes. His position is whatever is expedient in the moment. Or whatever keeps him out of hot water with his Russian handlers. And tens of millions of Americans fell for his charade. And tens of millions will continue to support him, facts be damned. 1) It is very possible to be pro-alternative energy and anti-Paris accord. 2) Some people fell for a charade. Others wanted to send a message to "regular" politicians. I think the majority held their nose and voted against a lying, thieving harpy. He was still the least bad choice among those two. When all else fails, just call Hillary Clinton a "lying, thieving harpy." Also: the election is over. If you're cool with the fact that the "least bad choice" is actively ceding global leadership to Russia and China, that's on you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 9:35:22 GMT -5
Kudos to President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Accord, despite the loud voices of the media and the left. ...and the 190+ other countries of the world that have committed to addressing this issue. The United States is pretty much the only country in the world where's there is even a debate about climate change, and it's only because the loud voices of the right (or some small portion of the right). The arrogance here is stunning.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Jun 2, 2017 9:58:58 GMT -5
1) It is very possible to be pro-alternative energy and anti-Paris accord. 2) Some people fell for a charade. Others wanted to send a message to "regular" politicians. I think the majority held their nose and voted against a lying, thieving harpy. He was still the least bad choice among those two. When all else fails, just call Hillary Clinton a "lying, thieving harpy." Also: the election is over. If you're cool with the fact that the "least bad choice" is actively ceding global leadership to Russia and China, that's on you. I called her that way before she ran for president, not "when all else fails". OK, it's on me. Not glad he's president, but very relieved she isn't. Sorry I'm not one of her fanboys, I guess, if that gives you the sads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 10:15:31 GMT -5
When all else fails, just call Hillary Clinton a "lying, thieving harpy." Also: the election is over. If you're cool with the fact that the "least bad choice" is actively ceding global leadership to Russia and China, that's on you. I called her that way before she ran for president, not "when all else fails". OK, it's on me. Not glad he's president, but very relieved she isn't. Sorry I'm not one of her fanboys, I guess, if that gives you the sads. Oh, you've always immaturely called her stupid names? That makes it cool, I guess. No fanboy issues here. I'm just amazed that - no matter what outrageousness Trump subjects us to - the answer from some will always be "Hillary would have been worse". Our President's entire universe is under special counsel investigation, we've lost the trust of our closest allies, and China and Russia are licking their chops knowing that we're actively retreating from our position of leadership in the world. BUT THANK GOD THAT HARPY DIDN'T WIN! I really do wonder what it would take for some people to say "You know what? Maybe she would have been better."
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 2, 2017 12:37:53 GMT -5
1) It is very possible to be pro-alternative energy and anti-Paris accord. 2) Some people fell for a charade. Others wanted to send a message to "regular" politicians. I think the majority held their nose and voted against a lying, thieving harpy. He was still the least bad choice among those two. Nonsense. She's qualified. He's galactically stupid.
|
|