Author Topic: U.S. Politics  (Read 646164 times)

0 Members and 76 Guests are viewing this topic.

dcm1602

  • SUH DUDE
  • Blubbering Pussy
  • Mark Gastineau
  • *
  • Posts: 19533
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2325 on: June 01, 2017, 02:54:49 PM »
These are the white houses talking points on why we pulled out

Paris Accord – TALKERS
Topline: The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President’s action today is
keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first. The Accord was negotiated poorly
by the Obama Administration and signed out of desperation. It frontloads costs on the American
people to the detriment of our economy and job growth while extracting meaningless
commitments from the world’s top global emitters, like China. The U.S. is already leading the
world in energy production and doesn’t need a bad deal that will harm American workers.
UNDERMINES U.S. Competitiveness and Jobs
 According to a study by NERA Consulting, meeting the Obama Administration’s
requirements in the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over
the next several decades.
 By 2040, our economy would lose 6.5 million industrial sector jobs – including 3.1
million manufacturing sector jobs
 It would effectively decapitate our coal industry, which now supplies about one-third
of our electric power
The deal was negotiated BADLY, and extracts meaningless commitments from the
world’s top polluters
 The Obama-negotiated Accord imposes unrealistic targets on the U.S. for reducing our
carbon emissions, while giving countries like China a free pass for years to come.
 Under the Accord, China will actually increase emissions until 2030
The U.S. is ALREADY a Clean Energy and Oil & Gas Energy Leader; we can reduce
our emissions and continue to produce American energy without the Paris Accord
 America has already reduced its carbon-dioxide emissions dramatically.
 Since 2006, CO2 emissions have declined by 12 percent, and are expected to continue to
decline.
 According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. is the leader in oil
& gas production.
The agreement funds a UN Climate Slush Fund underwritten by American taxpayers
 President Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund - which is about 30
percent of the initial funding – without authorization from Congress
 With $20 trillion in debt, the U.S. taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize other
countries’ energy needs.

Andrew Ryan

  • Shaun Ellis
  • *******
  • Posts: 9306
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2326 on: June 01, 2017, 02:55:38 PM »
Trump's own Secretary of State was opposed to pulling out of the accord.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2017, 03:19:04 PM by Andrew Ryan »

Tommy

  • Mark Gastineau
  • *********
  • Posts: 15164
  • I don't get it
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2327 on: June 01, 2017, 02:56:01 PM »
If the United States gave a excrement about global warming it should make its OWN bill and standards for us to follow. And then expand upon it globally. I know you'll get excrement for your comments because it's you saying them, but you're completely correct. It's an extremely vague bill with no specifications and no accountability.

Hell look what happened with Trump and Nato the other day. He basically called out other countries for not sticking to their agreements on defense spending. And he pretty much got criticized for it like it's somehow his fault.

The thing is that the government really doesn't need to get involved. Companies here already invests billions in hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. Just because wind turbines look cool it doesn't mean they're the most effective renewable energy resource. The government gave out excrement loads of subsidies to renewable energy companies after Obama was elected (I know because I sold renewable energy research to a lot of companies that don't even exist anymore), and it didn't amount to much at all. In fact, the big oil companies that people hate are some of the largest investors in renewable and sustainable energy. Energy efficiency will save money in the long run once the technology is there. The government doesn't need to get involved, companies see where the future lies. The government didn't have to ban horse and carriages for the automobile to take over.
"Wrong!"

Tommy

  • Mark Gastineau
  • *********
  • Posts: 15164
  • I don't get it
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2328 on: June 01, 2017, 02:57:01 PM »
For christ's sake, Trump's own Secretary of State disagrees with you.

And?
"Wrong!"

Miamipuck

  • Puckstapo
  • Wayne Chrebet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 26350
  • I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2329 on: June 01, 2017, 02:58:49 PM »
Shocking that Tommy and DCM agree with staying out of the accord for absolutely no reason other than hurr durr. Shocking I tell you.
<----Would you say Jetoffensive is a Flock, a Herd or a Gaggle of assholes? <-------- Would you like to know more!

dcm1602

  • SUH DUDE
  • Blubbering Pussy
  • Mark Gastineau
  • *
  • Posts: 19533
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2330 on: June 01, 2017, 03:01:27 PM »
The thing is that the government really doesn't need to get involved. Companies here already invests billions in hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. Just because wind turbines look cool it doesn't mean they're the most effective renewable energy resource. The government gave out excrement loads of subsidies to renewable energy companies after Obama was elected (I know because I sold renewable energy research to a lot of companies that don't even exist anymore), and it didn't amount to much at all. In fact, the big oil companies that people hate are some of the largest investors in renewable and sustainable energy. Energy efficiency will save money in the long run once the technology is there. The government doesn't need to get involved, companies see where the future lies. The government didn't have to ban horse and carriages for the automobile to take over.

If the government truly believes that global warming is a threat to the lives of everybody on the earth then of course they should get involved. How they get involved is certainly debatable. I'm all for the free market, but I could also understand a selfish mentality of "why should my company foot the bill, I can be selfish and everybody else will take care of it"

dcm1602

  • SUH DUDE
  • Blubbering Pussy
  • Mark Gastineau
  • *
  • Posts: 19533
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2331 on: June 01, 2017, 03:04:03 PM »
Shocking that Tommy and DCM agree with staying out of the accord for absolutely no reason other than hurr durr. Shocking I tell you.

Or maybe because there's no good reason to be in it? If something is vague bullshit with zero accountability then it serves no purpose. I'm not a global warming hysteric, but if we were going to get involved in some kind of global warming pact. I'd want specific things that need to be done, and specific actions that will hold people and nations  accountable if they don't comply.

Is that not reasonable? I'm pretty sure that even the hardcore global warming activists would agree with that


Andrew Ryan

  • Shaun Ellis
  • *******
  • Posts: 9306
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2332 on: June 01, 2017, 03:06:04 PM »
And?

And as the former CEO of the largest oil company in the world, his opposition to pulling out of an agreement to reduce gas emissions should be telling.

Andrew Ryan

  • Shaun Ellis
  • *******
  • Posts: 9306
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2333 on: June 01, 2017, 03:11:53 PM »
The government didn't have to ban horse and carriages for the automobile to take over.

This is an absurd argument. Horse and carriages didn't represent a threat to our environment. The production of buggy whips didn't affect the quality of the air we breathe or the rise in sea levels.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2017, 03:14:53 PM by Andrew Ryan »

Miamipuck

  • Puckstapo
  • Wayne Chrebet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 26350
  • I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2334 on: June 01, 2017, 03:40:55 PM »
Or maybe because there's no good reason to be in it? If something is vague bullshit with zero accountability then it serves no purpose. I'm not a global warming hysteric, but if we were going to get involved in some kind of global warming pact. I'd want specific things that need to be done, and specific actions that will hold people and nations  accountable if they don't comply.

Is that not reasonable? I'm pretty sure that even the hardcore global warming activists would agree with that



Come to the tailgate so I can call you an unqualified idiot to your face, rather than bothering to type it out.
<----Would you say Jetoffensive is a Flock, a Herd or a Gaggle of assholes? <-------- Would you like to know more!

dcm1602

  • SUH DUDE
  • Blubbering Pussy
  • Mark Gastineau
  • *
  • Posts: 19533
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2335 on: June 01, 2017, 03:43:34 PM »
Come to the tailgate so I can call you an unqualified idiot to your face, rather than bothering to type it out.

Fine ignore me attempting to make a point. But is specificity unreasonable for something of this magnitude?

Derek Smalls

  • Mark Gastineau
  • *********
  • Posts: 19654
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2336 on: June 01, 2017, 03:52:22 PM »
Because he didn't agree to it, another US president did. I totally agree that global warming is real and a problem and needs to be dealt with. But this bill is complete excrement and is symbolic more than anything. I don't think that's the reason Trumps pulling out at all, I think he's just being an anti environmental pro fossil fuel ignoramus. But I think it happens to be the right thing to do
So if your logic is...
1. Global warming is real.
2. Trump is being an anti-environmental, pro-fossil fuel ignoramus.
3. The bill is symbolic and really not that important.

...what's the point of leaving it? Because Obama, "another US president," agreed to it? That's clearly Trump's logic - if Obama agreed to it, I'm going to erase it because freak Obama. And if he's being an ignoramus...

AlioTheFool

  • Administrator
  • Al Toon
  • *****
  • Posts: 13915
  • All Gas. No Brake.
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2337 on: June 01, 2017, 03:55:29 PM »
Trumps an ignorant freaking moron. But you guys with your conspiracy theorist excrement just hurt your cause.

If you wanna make a strong argument against Trump he's a stubborn ignorant fragile egomaniac. Nobody can argue that, and ira a huge issue. When you start rambling and rumbling about Russia and Jared Ivanka you just come off like a crazy who should be ignored.

Trump 100% is a problem. The other stuff is largely unsubstantiated

Jared is being investigated for attempting to set up a backchannel network directly to the Kremlin inside the Russian embassy. That's not conspiracy theorist bullshit, that's an actual investigation being carried out by US intelligence.

I guess we'll see what Comey has to say next week. Honestly, I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if we find out Trump had zero knowledge of any Russian collusion and it was all Kushner and Bannon.

Because he didn't agree to it, another US president did. I totally agree that global warming is real and a problem and needs to be dealt with. But this bill is complete excrement and is symbolic more than anything. I don't think that's the reason Trumps pulling out at all, I think he's just being an anti environmental pro fossil fuel ignoramus. But I think it happens to be the right thing to do

You admit you know he's doing this solely because he's a climate-change-denying ignoramus, but it's okay because you think the accord is inconsequential?

The president literally had the gall to whine that his son was upset that the image of his father's decapitated head was on the internet, yet he doesn't give a damn that he's paving the way to making the weather completely unpredictable in that same child's lifetime.

Twenty-two United States Senators pushed Trump to leave the accord, even against the advice of his own administration. I'm sure it's just me being a conspiracy theorist thinking the motivation wasn't "China can't be held to anything under this BS agreement."

BTW, China has actually reduced their emissions more than expected under the accord. But whatever. The president said this deal doesn't make America great again, so let's get rid of it.
Teams that draft well do so no matter where they pick. Teams that draft poorly do so no matter where they pick I want my team to win games and draft well

dcm1602

  • SUH DUDE
  • Blubbering Pussy
  • Mark Gastineau
  • *
  • Posts: 19533
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2338 on: June 01, 2017, 03:56:42 PM »
So if your logic is...
1. Global warming is real.
2. Trump is being an anti-environmental, pro-fossil fuel ignoramus.
3. The bill is symbolic and really not that important.

...what's the point of leaving it? Because Obama, "another US president," agreed to it? That's clearly Trump's logic - if Obama agreed to it, I'm going to erase it because freak Obama. And if he's being an ignoramus...

The bill isn't good.

Can anybody honestly say that it's reasonable to be a part of a vague bill that completely lacks specific actions and consequences? Or should we want something more concrete

AlioTheFool

  • Administrator
  • Al Toon
  • *****
  • Posts: 13915
  • All Gas. No Brake.
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #2339 on: June 01, 2017, 04:05:13 PM »
The bill isn't good.

Can anybody honestly say that it's reasonable to be a part of a vague bill that completely lacks specific actions and consequences? Or should we want something more concrete

If Trump was saying "You know what, this bill is inconsequential, let's meet and hash out something better" there'd be a lot less to say.

He pulled out of the accord--that has demonstratively been working--and insists that global warming isn't real.

This is after being pushed by 22 United States Senators and against the will of his own cabinet and prominent US business leaders.

But please, keep defending him for doing the "right" thing for the "wrong" reasons.
Teams that draft well do so no matter where they pick. Teams that draft poorly do so no matter where they pick I want my team to win games and draft well

Tags: