America - The Official Thread

[fatkrakr]

If Trump is excepting that the United States and China should pay the same amount, he's weaponising climate policy by forcing China to adopt targets that will put a drain on their economy and prevent them from competing with the United States.

That kind of bull is why were out.

 

[mister dog]

Here's Tucker's take on the Paris treaty (and the beheading woman). American politics are very interesting right now :

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That kind of bull is why were out.

So you're saying that Trump quit the Paris Accord because he was worried about the effect that the Accord would have on the Chinese economy?

 

[fatkrakr]

So you're saying that Trump quit the Paris Accord because he was worried about the effect that the Accord would have on the Chinese economy?

Yeah thats exactly what Im saying.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yeah thats exactly what Im saying.

Actually, it is what you're saying. Read the post again.

 

[CodeRedR51]

American politics are very interesting right now :

If you like to laugh, sure.

 

[fatkrakr]

Actually, it is what you're saying. Read the post again.

Not playing your games. You know exactly what I meant. If your gonna play stupid we are done.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You know exactly what I meant

Yes, I do. I am, however, unsure if you know what you mean.

But I suppose ignorance is better than the alternative - who cares if the environment is ruined so long as you have a slight short-term economic advantage?

 

[fatkrakr]

who cares if the environment is ruined so long as you have a slight short-term economic advantage?

Exaggerate much?

America has done at least as much as any other country in cleaning up the environment and in most cases much more. No where did the president say we wouldnt continue doing so. We just arent going to give other countries billions of dollars while we are doing it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes, I do. I am, however, unsure if you know what you mean.

But I suppose ignorance is better than the alternative - who cares if the environment is ruined so long as you have a slight short-term economic advantage?

Still awaiting your response to this, in case you missed it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

America has done at least as much as any other country in cleaning up the environment and in most cases much more.

The Paris Accord is not about what you have done before, but about what you will do next.

We just arent going to give other countries billions of dollars while we are doing it.

So how are those other countries going to do their part if you aren't helping them?

Exaggerate much?

Nope. The chance to stop global warming has passed. Now it's just about damage limitation.

 

[McLaren]

That kind of bull is why were out.

That's been his argument twice now.

"If America wants to renegotiate, then someone else gets taken advantage of. Why does America get to benefit itself?"
Because no other country has ever done that...

His point is pretty clear; pick up the tab or whine when we don't.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

His point is pretty clear; pick up the tab or whine when we don't.

No, my point is that if you want out, fine. But don't complain when it comes time to renegotiate and a) you don't get the terms you want and b) you're worse off as a result. Trump seems to be under the impression that other countries will accept terms that favour America at their own expense simply because they need America. So what's going to happen when Trump backs out of an agreement, comes back to renegotiate, but the other party turns him down because Trump's terms are bad for them and America is worse off as a result?

pick up the tab

Don't kid yourself. The rest of the world likes doing business with America because you're a good trading partner. None of your major trading partners need you to keep their own economies afloat, so if that relationship broke down, it would be disappointing ... but it wouldn't be catastrophic.

 

[McLaren]

No, my point is that if you want out, fine. But don't complain when it comes time to renegotiate and a) you don't get the terms you want and b) you're worse off as a result. Trump seems to be under the impression that other countries will accept terms that favour America at their own expense simply because they need America. So what's going to happen when Trump backs out of an agreement, comes back to renegotiate, but the other party turns him down because Trump's terms are bad for them and America is worse off as a result?

What if this turns out to be better for us? What if we do get a better deal?

You'll drop these assumptions faster than you drop responding to anyone who presents a post you've gotten in over your head with: *cough* @Johnnypenso's post.

Don't kid yourself. The rest of the world likes doing business with America because you're a good trading partner. None of your major trading partners need you to keep their own economies afloat, so if that relationship broke down, it would be disappointing ... but it wouldn't be catastrophic.

I'm pretty sure that goes the same for us then, yet naturally, you spit a 1-sided argument.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What if this turns out to be better for us? What if we do get a better deal?

Nothing. Because another country won't agree to something they don't find acceptable. I'm just being critical of Trump's attitude of thinking that he can bully other countries into accepting terms that are bad for them.

*cough* @Johnnypenso's post.

I thought it was pretty obvious what I think of Johnnypenso and why I rarely respond to him.

 

[Famine]

I'm just being critical of Trump's attitude of thinking that he can bully other countries into accepting terms that are bad for them

I thought he was withdrawing the USA from the Paris Agreement, not seeking to renegotiate it?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I thought he was withdrawing the USA from the Paris Agreement, not seeking to renegotiate it?

I'm thinking of the broader context of international partnerships.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I thought he was withdrawing the USA from the Paris Agreement, not seeking to renegotiate it?

He's seeking to renegotiate:

I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers. (Applause.)

Full transcript, contains his asides

 

[Dennisch]

I thought he was withdrawing the USA from the Paris Agreement, not seeking to renegotiate it?

No, he wants a better deal.

However, Mr Trump held out the hope of a compromise saying he would immediately start a process to develop a fairer deal that would protect American workers.

 

[McLaren]

Nothing. Because another country won't agree to something they don't find acceptable. I'm just being critical of Trump's attitude of thinking that he can bully other countries into accepting terms that are bad for them.

So you argue the same point & assume the same outcome once again, whilst having little to no care if the same is done to us (hence why Trump wanted out).

I thought it was pretty obvious what I think of Johnnypenso and why I rarely respond to him.

I'm sure the sentiment is shared, then.

 

[Famine]

So the already ludicrous gnashing and wailing about Trump killing the planet by removing the USA's 17% from the (flawed) Paris Agreement is even more ludicrous because he hasn't, he just thinks the agreed terms are unfair?

 

[fatkrakr]

The Paris Accord is not about what you have done before, but about what you will do next.

And we will keep doing what we have been doing for decades, cleaning up the environment.

So how are those other countries going to do their part if you aren't helping them?

Why is it America needs to fund most of the damn clean up? Mean while China will receive billions of dollars while being able to increase there use of the coal America must stop using yesterday?

Nope. The chance to stop global warming has passed. Now it's just about damage limitation.

Again exaggerate much?

So thats it America backed out so the chance stop it is gone? Wow kinda flies in the face of how we can just blow away and nobody would notice, no?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why is it America needs to fund most of the damn clean up?

Because the Paris Accord is structured so that countries pay based on their carbon output and population. The same formula has been used for each country.

 

[Scaff]

I'm going to strongly suggest that from this point on that people making factual claims start proving quotes and sources to support them.

As both sides have made some comments that in all honesty do not align with reality or actual facts.

Failure to do so will see the staff take the action they feel is most appropriate.

Let's start with a few basics as an example.

The Paris accords are a non binding, voluntary agreement that signaturies are able to amend without leaving.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/paris-climate-accord-unfair-u-s-putting-trumps-claims-context/

 

[fatkrakr]

Because the Paris Accord is structured so that countries pay based on their carbon output and population. The same formula has been used for each country.

Which is a BS deal and why we are out.

 

[Dotini]

IMO, the Paris accords never should have been signed by Obama. Because of the massive national economic impact, it should have been a treaty approved by the congress. And then of course it never would have been approved.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Which is a BS deal and why we are out.

So what would be an appropriate arrangement, then, if not an agreement based on how much carbon you pump into the atmosphere?

 

[Scaff]

Ah yes it doesnt follow your agenda so out comes the ban threats. Now I remember why I quit posting here.

Grow up and drop the persecution complex.

It's aimed at both parties and the last post that used an inacurate claim was PM.

The Paris accords contribution levels are, just as the past Durban ones, set by each individual country. Not by an imposed set formula.

http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php

You will also note that I addressed it to both sides, not just one.

Now if you have an issue with supporting factual claims with sources, then I do agree GT Planet is not the place for you.

 

[fatkrakr]

So what would be an appropriate arrangement, then, if not an agreement based on how much carbon you pump into the atmosphere?

Thats all it should be based on. Allowing China to receive billions in "aide" while still being able to use and build new coal plants helps the planet how?

 

[DK]

Well this is awkward.