Archive

Disgusted with Trump administration - Part I

  • superman
    sleeper;1856040 wrote:What's your top 5?
    In no order,
    Like_that
    O-trap
    Heretic
    Ironman 92
    Ironman 02
  • isadore
    CenterBHSFan;1856050 wrote:Several things wrong with your assertions.

    1.) I have absolutely condemned and mocked Trump. Those posts are there for everybody to see. As far as I know, none of them have been deleted by any moderator or admin.

    2.) Trudeau is not Canada, just a temporary visual front. But praising Castro gives a glimpse of what he thinks is praiseworthy, indeed. It wasn't an opinion, it was outright praise.
    Secondly, have you paid any attention, whatsoever, to what direction Canada is taking concerning freedom of speech, personal liberty? The laws of Canada are starting to be ate up by progressivism.
    Thirdly, Canada as a whole is becoming a meme of "tolerant of everyone who thinks as a collective".

    You're just spewing nonsense because you cannot back up your claims pertaining to Canada being tolerant.
    Gosh a ruddies.
    1. You did not vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8, 2016 so you are complicit in electing Donald Trump. He had already expressed his sympathies for Putin and Kim Jong-un.
    2. Let me try to teach you some basic English. All praise is opinion and Trudeau praises was just an opinion.
    3. We have your little opinion and then we have more dispassionate views that show Canada is the one of the most tolerant nations in the world.
    Poll Telegraph Poll
    Canada 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] most tolerant country in world, Luxemburg 1st
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-the-most-tolerant-countries/
    Frommer’s Poll
    Canada most tolerant in world
    http://www.frommers.com/slideshows/848159-the-world-s-most-tolerant-countries
    4. In case you have forgotten Canada has its own version of the Republican Party, the Conservative Party that controlled the Canadian Government from 2006-2015. Conservatism for better or worse survives in Canada.

  • iclfan2
    sleeper;1856041 wrote:Trump officially drops out of the Paris Climate deal.
    Good. The left can quit melting down and acting like pulling out of this has any impact on curbing "climate change". Also, Obama didn't even go through the treaty process before entering into it. And India has proposed 300+ more coal plants, how does that curb climate change?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • O-Trap
    Heretic;1856039 wrote:I think it's the same problem I have when it comes to pizza and my weight. I KNOW I should be watching what I eat and I KNOW there are plenty of better things for me that I'd enjoy at least as much, but there I am with a plate loaded down with it. Impulse control: Lacking.
    Shit.

    *orders pizza*
  • gut
    isadore;1856043 wrote:What is frightening is your inability to condemn a leader who you helped elect by not voting for Hillary Clinton.
    What's frightening is that the Democrats gave us such a horrible choice solely because they were completely obsessed with having our first woman POTUS.

    And that really set us back - now we're going to have to wait that much longer for our first gay Hispanic transgender POTUS.
  • sleeper
    iclfan2;1856072 wrote:Good. The left can quit melting down and acting like pulling out of this has any impact on curbing "climate change". Also, Obama didn't even go through the treaty process before entering into it. And India has proposed 300+ more coal plants, how does that curb climate change?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The left is the entire world. But you are right, the right wing party and its followers with their religion and backwards 1500 mentality know more than the entire world on issues of science.

    Go on. I'm really interested in hearing your argument against scientific consensus. Where is your PhD in Climatology from?
  • iclfan2
    How does getting out of the "treaty" affect how the US tackles "climate change"? Also, when did the Senate ratify the "treaty"?

    I'm not arguing for or against the "science" of climate change here, only about being in a stupid group that lets other countries weigh in on how we should run our own country.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • isadore
    gut;1856079 wrote:What's frightening is that the Democrats gave us such a horrible choice solely because they were completely obsessed with having our first woman POTUS.

    And that really set us back - now we're going to have to wait that much longer for our first gay Hispanic transgender POTUS.
    Gosh a ruddies the Democrats provided a qualified candidate, all the non-Hillary voters did not take that very viable choice, and gave us the ***** grabber. After 8 years of George H. Bush the country was ready to elect a charismatic African American moderate liberal. After 4 years of Trump the electorate maybe ready for our first gay Hispanic transgender POTUS.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    iclfan2;1856084 wrote:How does getting out of the "treaty" affect how the US tackles "climate change"? Also, when did the Senate ratify the "treaty"?

    I'm not arguing for or against the "science" of climate change here, only about being in a stupid group that lets other countries weigh in on how we should run our own country.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Not a treaty, it was an agreement that nearly the whole world largely agreed. The U.S. pulled India and China to agree to the terms of the agreement.

    Setting aside Simply put, this isolates the U.S. It does not make us strong,. It shows our allies we only care about ourselves and that we will end any agreement based on politics.
    Why should any future country trust us on anything now?
    Trump will just shit on any agreement based on the politics of the day.

    BTW, even for his supporters, he killed the idea of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem today. So, MAGA.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Canadian "free speech" has been under controversy for some time now. Here are varied sources describing what has been going on:

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9296/canada-parliament-condemns-free-speech

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/12957/war-against-free-speech-canada-close-passing-michael-qazvini#

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/freedom-of-speech-canada_b_2324999.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/03/07/canadas-parliament-wants-to-fight-islamophobia-by-killing-free-speech/

    Free speech should be a fundamental tenet of liberalism. Everyone realizes that people don't like to be offended. But they should have the right to be offended.
    As long as speech doesn't incite violence (calling for the deaths of police or people of religion) or panic (yelling fire in a theater), the freedom of expression should be allowed to exist in a free society. Canada has been treading in these murky waters for years now, and it's time for them to grow up.
  • O-Trap
    CenterBHSFan;1856090 wrote:Canadian "free speech" has been under controversy for some time now. Here are varied sources describing what has been going on:

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9296/canada-parliament-condemns-free-speech

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/12957/war-against-free-speech-canada-close-passing-michael-qazvini#

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/freedom-of-speech-canada_b_2324999.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/03/07/canadas-parliament-wants-to-fight-islamophobia-by-killing-free-speech/

    Free speech should be a fundamental tenet of liberalism. Everyone realizes that people don't like to be offended. But they should have the right to be offended.
    As long as speech doesn't incite violence (calling for the deaths of police or people of religion) or panic (yelling fire in a theater), the freedom of expression should be allowed to exist in a free society. Canada has been treading in these murky waters for years now, and it's time for them to grow up.
    I've even been disappointed with the US courts in terms of what they constitute "inciting" violence or panic.

    Certainly, I agree that ordering or planning the execution of someone is problematic.

    But if ANYTHING is a matter of genuinely-held conviction, it should be allowed to be stated. If anyone is denied the right to express their convictions under the auspices of "inciting" something, then I think we've misunderstood the purpose of the amendment.

    I saw this on an Australian talk show, where a woman thought there should be a legally-sanctioned ban on a documentary on the MRA, because it might "perpetuate hate."
  • Con_Alma
    ...so staying in the agreement is so China and India trust us??? How about China and India have the same carbon emission reduction requirements as the U.S.???

    It created a UN slush fund that we pour $$$into and doesn't require congressional approval for the cash with harsher requirements on the US to cut carbon emissions than others ....while the end result in impact on climate change according to MIT is negligible.
  • isadore
    motions
  • Con_Alma
    The Paris Climate Accord was about as brilliant as the "non-treaty" Iran deal.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Con_Alma;1856102 wrote:...so staying in the agreement is so China and India trust us??? How about China and India have the same carbon emission reduction requirements as the U.S.???

    It created a UN slush fund that we pour $$$into and doesn't require congressional approval for the cash with harsher requirements on the US to cut carbon emissions than others ....while the end result in impact on climate change according to MIT is negligible.
    China, India, EU, Africa, South America, and a whole lot of fortune 500 companies support the agreement. There is a reason every other country except Syria and Nicaragua supported it.
    The U.S. sent a message today, we don't a shit about the rest of the world. Alliances and agreements be damned. No ally can really trust us now. The U.S. will not honor any agreement.
    This applies to companies in other countries that may want to do business with the U.S. now too.

    Why should any country enter into any trade or economic deal with the U.S.?
    If Trump likes it one day, he may shit on it the next and end it.
  • gut
    Con_Alma;1856102 wrote: It created a UN slush fund that we pour $$$into and doesn't require congressional approval for the cash with harsher requirements on the US to cut carbon emissions than others ....while the end result in impact on climate change according to MIT is negligible.
    Yeah, the entire scheme is designed to be a global wealth transfer. It's an excuse to tax and regulate, on a global scale, and little more.
  • Con_Alma
    ptown_trojans_1;1856119 wrote:...
    Why should any country enter into any trade or economic deal with the U.S.?
    If Trump likes it one day, he may shit on it the next and end it.
    ...because it would be mutually beneficial for them. If it wouldn't they shouldn't enter into a trade deal. This "accord" was a ridiculous, feel good for climate change, ridiculously expensive ego show.

    Nothing stops the U.S. from being environmentally conscious. Meanwhile other nations belch into the atmosphere at crazy levels and claim they are part of the Paris Accord. ...and according to MIT has little to no impact.
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    Trump is causing our country to take on his personality - selfish, narcissistic, greedy and untrustworthy. He is a bully and a charlatan. He doesn't give a flying **** for the common man. He's in it for his own ends and the interests of the little New York cabal he's got around him. This is a sad day for our great country. We have elected the enemy.
  • superman
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1856127 wrote:Trump is causing our country to take on his personality - selfish, narcissistic, greedy and untrustworthy. He is a bully and a charlatan. He doesn't give a flying **** for the common man. He's in it for his own ends and the interests of the little New York cabal he's got around him. This is a sad day for our great country. We have elected the enemy.
    You forgot to switch screen names slerper.
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    superman;1856128 wrote:You forgot to switch screen names slerper.
    Wrong. I've been known to give Sleeper crap. He and I don't see eye to eye on plenty. We do on Trump though.
  • Con_Alma
    The Paris Accord was nothing more than sentiment over substance.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Con_Alma;1856118 wrote:The Paris Climate Accord was about as brilliant as the "non-treaty" Iran deal.
    Which the White House said Iran is complying and said they support...for now.
    Con_Alma;1856125 wrote:...because it would be mutually beneficial for them. If it wouldn't they shouldn't enter into a trade deal. This "accord" was a ridiculous, feel good for climate change, ridiculously expensive ego show.

    Nothing stops the U.S. from being environmentally conscious. Meanwhile other nations belch into the atmosphere at crazy levels and claim they are part of the Paris Accord. ...and according to MIT has little to no impact.
    Why should another country trust what Trump says in a trade deal? He clearly does not honor any agreements and changes his mind on a whim.
    Don't buy the MIT hated it argument. Reread what they actually came out with and the actual study. They even stated tonight the U.S. should not have pulled out of the agreement.
    Con_Alma;1856132 wrote:The Paris Accord was nothing more than sentiment over substance.
    If it was so bad, why did every country on earth, except 2 sign up for it? Seriously, most other agreements do not get nearly as many countries on board. So I just guess Syria and Trump knew more than the rest of the world? Riiiight.

    Again, to the larger point, why should other countries trust our leadership now? We don't believe in anything but ourselves. Screw the rest of the world. Why would I trust the U.S. now if I am another country?
  • superman
    Trump didn't change his mind on Paris. It was a campaign promise.
  • gut
    ptown_trojans_1;1856140 wrote: Again, to the larger point, why should other countries trust our leadership now? We don't believe in anything but ourselves. Screw the rest of the world. Why would I trust the U.S. now if I am another country?
    The only thing they're going to cry about is the US not being around to kick in the lionshare of the funding. But the big kicker are the carbon taxes, and that's where the US is the proverbial whale. It's unclear how that will shake out since we aren't part of Paris, and it's a valid point that maybe we should have had a seat at the table in setting those terms....but there's more than one way to skin a cat.

    The money shot is this: in 2013, global carbon revenues were $28B...only 27% ($7.8B) went to green initiatives. A similar amount went to "general funds" with the remaining $10B being rebated to corporations or individuals. Basically all the earmarks of classic cronyism - no wonder Elon Musk had a hissy fit when the US backed out.

    We didn't participate in Kyoto, either, and somehow the US maintained global leadership. Literally nothing has really changed since Kyoto (certainly not the temperature!).
  • majorspark
    ptown_trojans_1;1856089 wrote:Not a treaty, it was an agreement that nearly the whole world largely agreed.
    By every definition it is a treaty. A treaty today is now just referred to by any one of its synonyms in order to subvert the Constitution. John Kerry sums it up pretty good.

    [video=youtube;QdY61QwZ1es][/video]