The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

TC said:
Or maybe being committed to clean energy is better publicity than simply following the law. If it's a choice, companies can advertise that they're making smart choices. If it's required by law... well... there isn't much they can do with that.
Click to expand...

I cannot follow the line of reasoning. They are indeed asking the President not to quit the Paris agreement; it means they think their interest lies in following the agreement.

And they are guided by profit, not by charity. Their action means they actively prefere the Paris agreement.

Trump is having problem understanding things in the only field in which he should have serious skills.

LeVeL said:
My point was more that Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement is pretty insignificant. A number of states and many companies are going to continue their efforts anyways and Trump said he's willing to discuss the accord again under more favorable terms (some seem to think that he isn't interested at all and that doesn't appear to be the case).
Click to expand...

More favorable than what? The US is one of the most polluting countries in the world (probably the first one per capita)...
The fact that many states and companies will still continue their efforts show how far Trump is from them.

But the most important point is the first: pulling out of the Paris agreement is far from insignificant, because:

PelicanHazard said:
The damage pulling out of the Agreement caused is not to the environment.
Click to expand...

That is so true.

Trump pulled out of the agreement, the -entire- world told him he was making a mistake. Not the enemies, not the competitors, not some environmentalist third parties; the entire world, including the closest allies to the US, have at least signaled their disappointment.

This is a sign of weakness. The US is losing influence and power over the world, pisses off its allies, offers the flank to its enemies, dropping in credibility and leadership.

Hegemony is a fleeting state of being, when the loss will be accepted, it will have been gone for a long time.

Trump did what he wanted, and everybody else preferred to tell him. For a start, they prefer to be in the Paris agreement than outside of it, and they have enough strength left, or the agreement is important enough for them that they chose to disagree with the US.

Either way, it's not good for the US.
 
SirEdward said:
I cannot follow the line of reasoning. They are indeed asking the President not to quit the Paris agreement; it means they think their interest lies in following the agreement.

And they are guided by profit, not by charity. Their action means they actively prefere the Paris agreement.
Click to expand...
This whole thing is one enormous virtue signal, top to bottom. The Paris Agreement is non-binding and the "evil greedy corporations" are jumping on the bandwagon because it makes them look good, even if they don't actually do anything to help the environment, just like everyone else that signed the Paris Agreement. It's an opportunity to pretend that you care, in order to get votes, make money, bolster egos, pander to your fanbase, etc.

Or maybe I'm too pessimistic. Or not pessimistic enough, since I don't believe the sky is falling.
 
TC said:
This whole thing is one enormous virtue signal, top to bottom. The Paris Agreement is non-binding and the "evil greedy corporations" are jumping on the bandwagon because it makes them look good, even if they don't actually do anything to help the environment, just like everyone else that signed the Paris Agreement. It's an opportunity to pretend that you care, in order to get votes, make money, bolster egos, pander to your fanbase, etc.
Click to expand...

Even if that's the case (which is actually possible), that would be a bad move on Trump's. It doesn't hold even in a pessimistic, conspirationistically-oriented way of seeing the world. If the agreement is non-binding, and you don't want to follow it, why pull out?

Or maybe I'm too pessimistic. Or not pessimistic enough, since I don't believe the sky is falling.
Click to expand...

The sky is indeed falling, unfortunately. Greenhouse gases have grown -exponentially- (that is an important concept) in the last 3 centuries, and greenhouse gases -do- affect climate. Global temperatures are rising. The climate system is huge, chaotic and has a very high inertia. It took time to budge it, but now it's moving, and it's not going to stop for decades even if all of its causes were immediately halted.

We are also the major responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we had their levels more than doubled in a couple of centuries, after the industrial revolution.

Let's assume for a moment the most human-innocent scenario. The world is changing, even if we are not the cause, we and our societies are not evolved to live in a new, hotter environment. We should try to slow down the process as much as we can, to give ourselves and our societies time to adapt. The faster the changing, the harder the hit, the higher the cost.

After all, we are not trying to save the planet, we are trying to save ourselves and our sorry a**es.


LeVeL said:
:roflmao: That's enough internet for me. I'm done.
Click to expand...

That's a bit arrogant, isn't it?

I have grown up in a world where each US move was backed up by some countries and opposed by others, I have grown up in a world where the US had enough influence to start wars on the premise of silly, transparent lies, with most of its allies saying nothing at all.

And now I see the US being reproached by their closest allies (the UK) over a beaurocratic, non-binding agreement.

Laugh what you want, it's the same arrogant blindness as Trump's.
 
LeVeL said:
I see it the other way around. Europeans seem to not realize that if the US takes a back seat role overseas, you will all be speaking (in order of likelihood) Chinese, Arabic, or Russian. And yet you have the balls to talk shit about POTUS and blatantly expect him to toe the line and sign onto deals that cost the US dearly. Hell, look at what we do to hold up NATO when the vast majority of members can't be bothered to pay what they're obligated to. Quite frankly, a lot of Trump's base is sick and tired of their tax dollars flowing overseas while Europeans look down from their high horses on dumb fat Americans. So go ahead, keep complaining about how terrible Trump is - just keep in mind that a) I don't see a very long thread about European politics (in English, mind you) so suggesting that the US is losing influence is laughable, and b) I hear Rosetta Stone goes on sale around major holidays.
Click to expand...

I speak German. Frankly I don't give a fuck if the main business language is English or Chinese.

Trump is an unreliable president, shaping an unreliable America.

Nobody wants an unreliable partner. If a partner becomes unreliable, others start turning away from him, looking for alternatives. Not much intelligence is required for understanding that. It's what's gonna happen if Trump continues his presidency in the way he has for half a year now.

He has achieved nothing, I repeat absolutely nothing yet. And I mean zip. Zero. Nothing. Except for one thing: Alienating America's partners and friends. If that is what makes you proud to be an American, I only have pity for you.
 
Last edited:
We are only fighting wars the the USA has started. That includes the Drug War that is once again being ratcheted up.
 
My very simple take on environmentalism:
18892983_1767852183235785_2631760912410151798_n.jpg
 
Why did I ignore this thread :tvhappy:

GO MURICA
 
LeVeL seems to have a gross misunderstanding of US reasons and effects of foreign policy. Completely in line with other libertarians I know. This ends well.
 
Less talking, more doing. All I see now with how things are going is a bunch of words and no substance.
 
LeVeL said:
[...] For example, I don't want the US to leave NATO but I also don't want the US to foot the entire bill - a middle ground approach where countries pay the percentage they agreed to would be great. [...]
Click to expand...
The countries don't pay Nato, they pay their own Military - I hope you're not one of these people that keep misunderstanding that (I get the impression the Us-President does not understand this the way he talks about it). The Us pays no more for Nato or their Military if other countries don't spend 2% on their military. And the countries in Nato agreed to reach 2% of their GDP in Spending for their Military until 2025. Let's talk about it again when the deadline is a bit closer and not just when the Us-president trying to look like a big boy who's not afraid to tell the Prime Minister of Luxembourg that he needs to increase military spending by 400% ... because at this point that's all it is.

There is also no gain for Nato in the sort of Military spending that countries like Greece and France do. Greece relies on the Military to secure it's borders instead of having an Agency for that by itself like other countries, France has the Military doing police-work on the streets. NATO gains nothing by soldiers patrolling the streets of Paris or the Greece Navy checking passports in their harbours - yet that all still counts as Military spending.
So yeah, those 20+ Countries that are not yet meeting their targets - are going to get equally creative, without Nato and it's capabilities profiting one bit. Hell, what are countries like Luxembourg gonna do? Buy 1 Tank each year and just park them in a garage and collect dust? Or buy one tiny warship to let it patrol the Upper S?re Lake? Because that's what will happen. The countries will spend their Military budget on stuff that does nothing or very little for Natos capabilites. In Germany the Government is already talking about using the Military for security like in France.
 
Last edited:
Trump supporters must really be worried about Comey's testimony.

 
LeVeL said:
Short reply: countries that spend too little on military, end up relying on the US for defense.
Click to expand...

Realistically how likely are all the western countries to be attacked in a conventional war? Considering all of em have nukes.

- - - Updated - - -

Interrobang said:
There is also no gain for Nato in the sort of Military spending that countries like Greece and France do. Greece relies on the Military to secure it's borders instead of having an Agency for that by itself like other countries, France has the Military doing police-work on the streets. NATO gains nothing by soldiers patrolling the streets of Paris or the Greece Navy checking passports in their harbours - yet that all still counts as Military spending.
So yeah, those 20+ Countries that are not yet meeting their targets - are going to get equally creative, without Nato and it's capabilities profiting one bit. Hell, what are countries like Luxembourg gonna do? Buy 1 Tank each year and just park them in a garage and collect dust? Or buy one tiny warship to let it patrol the Upper S?re Lake? Because that's what will happen. The countries will spend their Military budget on stuff that does nothing or very little for Natos capabilites. In Germany the Government is already talking about using the Military for security like in France.
Click to expand...
They will spend it same way US *used* to spend military money prior to 1970s - on fundamental scientific research. Which will have no benefit to NATO but will greatly benefit innovation industries in their nations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top