GoBills808 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Ah, so when he disses your lobbyists its a problem. When he ignores Germany's lobbyists its a problem, and "Trump doesn't know what he's doing". But, when he listens to people who represent our companies and our workers, who have facts like: 1. we've reduced our emissions on our own, more than anybody else, without any grand, socialist wealth transfer scheme, and, 2. China is now the largest polluter, but this agreement lets them pollute even more That's listening to lobbyists? Buddy, you are defending a lame-ass political vehicle for world socialism, and always have been. This(by that I mean the policy) never had anything to do with anything other than taking our $. It's a scam, based on highly questionable hypotheses. Not theory. Unproven, and in some cases, disproven hypotheses. Putting aside the fact that it's proof positive your claim that he doesn't listen to lobbyists is factually inaccurate, I actually agree with your points. We DO have the initiative to reduce emissions without a worldwide accord, but there's nothing in Trump's agenda or budget to suggest he's moving in that direction. As for me defending lobbyists, psshhft. I advocated for an open door policy, think Citizens United is arguably the worst decision in US judicial history, and was actually hopeful when Trump claimed he'd institute a five year ban on registering after working in a government position. I admit it. I was hopeful, but it's looking like more hot air with each decision he makes post-election. And I certainly haven't hidden the fact that a lot of my politics lean toward socialism. No reason for me to run from that. IMO it's less a 'highly questionable hypothesis' than a simple socioeconomic evolution as I define it. You'd be better off arguing against Darwin and Wallace.
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 No, I'm asking you as a management consultant: 1. You have a client who had a dictatorial clown proceed to F up 50+ business processes. 2. He's gone, and the new guy has to un-F everything. What's your advice/methodology? Six Sigma, or, do we just quickly and efficiently undo everything? What's best for the client? We're not talking about business decisions. Were talking about the government, which is totally different, and should be totally different. You're arguing for an autocratic state. When it comes to the entity which holds a monopoly on force, with all historical evidence demonstrating that such entities are more than willing to use that force against it's own citizens, process is far more important than individual outcome, and it's not even close.
OCinBuffalo Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) Magic number is 34. 38 states needed to ratify any agreements. Democrat states won't comply. See, I thought it was 34...but...I just read this today: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/democrats-should-fear-the-2018-midterms/ Which made me think I was wrong, and it was 33. And, understand: if, ~27 states pass this Convention resolution? Democrats hit the panic button. There's no way they are going to let a Convention of 34 states happen without them being there. The national press coverage, the entire time, with no D response, because they didn't show up? No way. I looked at this recently. You only need a few states, like NV, OR, CO, which are iffy sorta states that could show up just because...and only 1-2 of them, to get to 34. I don't see NYS sitting home if there is even the slightest chance of anything coming of this. WTF would Albany say to us if they refused to represent us at a national convention? How are they even a legit government at that point? No. The tipping point is 25-27. A simple majority forces everybody to come. We're not talking about business decisions. Were talking about the government, which is totally different, and should be totally different. You're arguing for an autocratic state. When it comes to the entity which holds a monopoly on force, with all historical evidence demonstrating that such entities are more than willing to use that force against it's own citizens, process is far more important than individual outcome, and it's not even close. No. I'm simply asking you to use your common sense and stop pretending that Trump dumping an illegitimate agreement is some sort of path to a Stalinist state. No. The agreement was Stalinist. Dumping it, by definition is a rejection of that Stalinist approach. That's the takeaway. Again, why waste the time of sending it to the Senate when we already know they are going to vote it down? Ceremony. That's the only thing that changes. You get to have your ceremony. We don't have time to waste on pictures and pens and whatever the F else. We need Congress focused(tall order already) on Obamacare and Tax Reform, and not dicking around with side issues that aren't even legit. Edited June 1, 2017 by OCinBuffalo
IDBillzFan Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Trump must have made the right call because this is what far left Twitter is like right now.
OCinBuffalo Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) Putting aside the fact that it's proof positive your claim that he doesn't listen to lobbyists is factually inaccurate, I actually agree with your points. We DO have the initiative to reduce emissions without a worldwide accord, but there's nothing in Trump's agenda or budget to suggest he's moving in that direction. As for me defending lobbyists, psshhft. I advocated for an open door policy, think Citizens United is arguably the worst decision in US judicial history, and was actually hopeful when Trump claimed he'd institute a five year ban on registering after working in a government position. I admit it. I was hopeful, but it's looking like more hot air with each decision he makes post-election. And I certainly haven't hidden the fact that a lot of my politics lean toward socialism. No reason for me to run from that. IMO it's less a 'highly questionable hypothesis' than a simple socioeconomic evolution as I define it. You'd be better off arguing against Darwin and Wallace. You still don't get it: We DON'T NEED FEDERAL HELP OR BUDGET to solve this problem. The energy companies are doing it themselves. Rarely if ever is yet another Fed program the answer: all it is is another way to hire more D votes. Why does Trump need to involve himself in something that is already being done, with empirical success, by the private sector? Socialism has/will fail completely: See Europe, actually having to pay for their own defense. The only reason socialism didn't die in Europe a long time ago is not paying for their defense. They live on our dime. So does Japan. So does S Korea. The NHS is in deep trouble in England, as it should be, because they've spent themselves to death, and now are talking about making people pay out of pocket for a GP, and forcing the GPs to compete That's not very socialist. That's capitalist. Explain that evolution. Not having a real defense budget for decades gave you the illusion that socialism is "evolutionary". You're about to get a real lesson in evolution, when the EU's environment changes, and they are forced to adapt or become extinct. Their governments will either reduce the social/welfare state, or, be replaced by governments that have adapted to paying for their own D. See, it's all very evolutionary. Edited June 1, 2017 by OCinBuffalo
Dante Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) What a great day today! Breaking out of yet another scam imposed by foreign, unelected bureaucrats . Trillions saved for US and not sucked into a grand wealth transfer scheme! Edited June 1, 2017 by Dante
Chef Jim Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 See MELTDOWN; Best Ever; Life of a liberal. Chapt.3, pg. 87, para 3. What the hell is wrong with people?
IDBillzFan Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 What a great day today! Breaking out of yet another scam imposed by foreign, unelected bureaucrats . Trillions saved for US and not sucked into a grand wealth transfer scheme! The new teenager in charge of France just told American companies that if you value innovation, you can call France your new homeland. Best. Meltdown. Ever. Continues.
HappyDays Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 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.
26CornerBlitz Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 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. Not 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. Interesting that energy giants such as Exxon-Mobil and Chevron were in favor of the United States remaining in the agreement.
IDBillzFan Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 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. THERE. WAS. NO. AGREEMENT. Why the hell are you sheep so unbelievably blind to this fact?
26CornerBlitz Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 THERE. WAS. NO. AGREEMENT. Why the hell are you sheep so unbelievably blind to this fact? There seems to be some debate on this: http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/01/authority-paris-agreement/
IDBillzFan Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 There seems to be some debate on this: http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/01/authority-paris-agreement/ There is no debate. It was never ratified. All it got was Barry's signature. That's not an agreement. It's an autograph. YOu want to argue he did it under EO? Trump can just un-EO the EO. What the hell is wrong with everyone on this?
26CornerBlitz Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 There is no debate. It was never ratified. All it got was Barry's signature. That's not an agreement. It's an autograph. YOu want to argue he did it under EO? Trump can just un-EO the EO. What the hell is wrong with everyone on this? Then why even have a White House ceremony announcing the US is out with Trump saying the non-binding parts are "immediately" withdrawn from?
Doc Brown Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 There is no debate. It was never ratified. All it got was Barry's signature. That's not an agreement. It's an autograph. YOu want to argue he did it under EO? Trump can just un-EO the EO. What the hell is wrong with everyone on this? It never would of been passed by 2/3rds in a Republican majority Senate. Got to keep the big energy company donors happy. Interesting that energy giants such as Exxon-Mobil and Chevron were in favor of the United States remaining in the agreement. That's what they said publicly. Yes. Then why even have a White House ceremony announcing the US is out with Trump saying the non-binding parts are "immediately" withdrawn from? So Trump can explain his decision and scream JOBS JOBS JOBS.
IDBillzFan Posted June 2, 2017 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. So what? All you're saying is what I am saying: it was never ratified. Want it ratified? Get a Democrat in the WH and win control of the House and Senate, and there you go! Oh, wait. You had that. Pissed it away. This world would be so much easier to live in if Democrats could ever...just once...grasp the concept of self-accountability. But no. Russia. Wikileaks. Comey. Bad data. Broke DNC. Couldn't pass the climate agreement. Boo-freaking-hoo.
Dante Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) There is no debate. It was never ratified. All it got was Barry's signature. That's not an agreement. It's an autograph. YOu want to argue he did it under EO? Trump can just un-EO the EO. What the hell is wrong with everyone on this? If there actually is any form of common sense or intelligence to understand anything it is totally neutralized by pure Trump hate. Any crumb that can be interpreted and some sort of secret agenda like "It never would of been passed by 2/3rds in a Republican majority Senate. Got to keep the big energy company donors happy." will be exploited. This has been the best first 8 months of a presidency and prez elect ever. Its been the most entertaining ever. Edited June 2, 2017 by Dante
IDBillzFan Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 Then why even have a White House ceremony announcing the US is out with Trump saying the non-binding parts are "immediately" withdrawn from? The same reason you have a White House ceremony announcing that the US is IN with Obama and an EO. Because it's a big gesture designed to piss of the other side of the aisle. The difference is that the GOP gets upset, but the left and the media doesn't just get upset. It pisses itself, pukes itself and schitts itself..all together...at the same time...almost like it's a coordinated effort or something. Damn you people are gullible.
B-Man Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 Christopher HayesVerified account @chrislhayes Follow More THE AGREEMENT QUITE LITERALLY IMPOSES NOTHING!!! But somehow, if we leave this non-binding accord, the Earth is doomed Oh democrats.......................please never change
Doc Brown Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 So what? All you're saying is what I am saying: it was never ratified. Want it ratified? Get a Democrat in the WH and win control of the House and Senate, and there you go! Oh, wait. You had that. Pissed it away. This world would be so much easier to live in if Democrats could ever...just once...grasp the concept of self-accountability. But no. Russia. Wikileaks. Comey. Bad data. Broke DNC. Couldn't pass the climate agreement. Boo-freaking-hoo. You'd still need 67 votes so I'm doubting it would ever pass the Senate. The Democrats lost because they turned their back on the working class, identity politics, and ran a horrible candidate.
Recommended Posts