US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[vienna]

A question Trump asked in his Paris Accord pullout speech:

"At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us, as a country?"

Here's and accurate response:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ushpmg00000313

"Make America Great Again?" Trump's only major accomplishment is to make America the laughing stock of the world. We join Syria and Nicaragua as the only countries not joining in the Accord. What an achievement: lumping the US together with a totalitarian dictatorship (a form of government seemingly close to Trump's heart) and a banana republic (a status Trump also seems determined to inflict on the citizens of the US).

This is what happens when you let the clowns run the circus...

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...s-climate-deal

Trump is so pathetic, even the city he used as a political synonym for his "argument" rebuffed his claims to represent its citizens:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-comments.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...QOM/story.html

Of course, in the Bizarro world of Trumpland, where "yes" means "no", both mean "maybe" and reality is mutably subjective to the whims of The Great Orange Leader, the perceptions of the citizens of Pittsburgh don't really exist:

“President Trump’s speech today was the culmination of a long-standing campaign promise,” a White House spokesperson said. “The people of Pittsburgh, like other hardworking American families across the country, are the people he is fighting for and who know that in this administration America comes first.”

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ci...s/201706010234

Trump and his oblivious cohorts are even planning to hold a "victory" rally around his Pittsburgh claim:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...t-paris-239071

The fact Trump is not holding the rally in Pittsburgh is not escaping the attention of the city's citizens and their ire:

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/...rally-d-c.html

This is a statement from the Mayor of Pittsburgh in response to Trump's claims:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b075bff0f3055d

The whole situation is a classic Trump screw-up or as it is often known in the vernacular, a major "SNAFU"; all that's left is for Trump to start tweeting in contradiction to what he and his minions have been dishing out. The Clown-In-Chief just can't seem to avoid giving himself pies in the face...




<O>

[Skybird]

Honestyl said, I think this all is a lot of hot air - pardon the pun - over nothing.

The relevance of the goals in this treaty is being taken far too seriously. Trump leaving it, gets therefore overestimated as well. Many Us companies are cities are ahead of Trump already anyway, and will not jump off the ecology trains they already embarked on - no matter what Trumps says.

What you should think of the Paris treaty gets illustrated by the fact that there are no sanctions in this treaty, and that the Us will, have legally left the treaty not before or exatcly around - when the next presidnet in 2020 will have gotten elected.

"But its about the climate, stupid!", I hear them yelling, and so everybody goes hysterical.

Paris, and Trumps decision, historically will be remembered as relatively unimportant events. So move on everybody, nothing to see here.

Personally I am far more worried about the release of the immense methanhydrate reservoirs into the atmosphere, from the permafrost areas in Russia and the deep seas. And these will not care for 1.5°C goals and huge conferences, I am certain. Compared to that, those CO2 emissions everbyody is getting hyped over to allow policy makers more regulations to command and order the people around, are probabaly almost irrelevant.

[Skybird]

Superb reading:

LINK: Who killed the liberal world order?

Mirrors my thoughts on Obama and the Western universalism almost perfectly.

For German readers, a translation in the FAZ: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/t...-15043940.html

[eddie]

I love the headline in this German paper!

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/...th-trump-****/

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

when it comes to climate change, people don't seem to realise that CO2 emissions have been falling in both the USA and the EU. The big polluters are now China and India:

Yes, but to compare industrialized countries to those that are still industrializing is a bit misleading. The US and the EU are in a position to be able to try cut their net emissions, China and India are not, they concentrate on cutting their emission intensity instead. One also must take in consideration that both China and India have 1+ billion people, so comparing net emissions is, again, a bit misleading.

Per capita emissions are still way higher in the US than in China or India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions

1. The USA had the highest target for CO2 reduction (26-28 %), but China and India were allowed to increase their CO2 level until 2030!

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india.html

Yes, they are allowed to do so, and this is again because they are going through heavy industrialization. But both countries are already taking steps to mitigate their emissions by using more and more zero-emission power. Especially India is beginning to use more and more solar power, because it has become cheaper than coal power. China is expected to peak its emissions before their 2030 target and they are building more and more renewable power sources , so they are definitely not just running wild even if allowed to.

2. The economic cost to the USA could be enormous:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/paris-c...was-a-bad-deal

That is based on the NERA study, which has been widely criticized since it was released and is now wildy out-of-date.

EDIT: Earlier link was criticizing an earlier report from NERA, my mistake. Here's a new one: https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/1/15...t-million-jobs

3. even with all that, the overall climate effect would be marginal:

The Daily Beast misleads with its quote. The study says that:

Assuming the proposed cuts (2015 INDCs) are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century[..]

The 2015 INDCs are not planned to remain the same for the whole century, but are adjusted periodically if the country so chooses.

The study: https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/d...%20Outlook.pdf


EDIT: Also,

[ikalugin]

If the goal is to cut overall global emisions it may be prudent for the developed states to increase their emissions via re-industrialisation. This reindustrialisation would mean that less is produced in the developing states which, coupled with the higher specific emisions (per unit of goods manufactured) would lead to the lower overall global emisions.

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

those that are still industrializing

Given the sheer amount of Chinese made products on our store shelves I have a difficult time seeing them as a country that is still industrializing. Especially when they have resources to devote to military build ups.

[vienna]

Support For Donald Trump's Impeachment Is Now Higher Than His Approval Rating

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump...e-house-620913

Seems like Trump can't even make himself 'great' again'...

It could be interesting to see what the polls look like Friday morning...




<O>

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

Given the sheer amount of Chinese made products on our store shelves I have a difficult time seeing them as a country that is still industrializing. Especially when they have resources to devote to military build ups.

I don't make the criteria for what is and isn't a industrialized country.


In other news, Trump continues to make friends.

Pathetic excuse by London Mayor Sadiq Khan who had to think fast on his "no reason to be alarmed" statement. MSM is working hard to sell it!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...25780535062528

And what the mayor said:

Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed. One of the things the police, all of us need to do is make sure we're as safe as we possibly can be.

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I don't make the criteria for what is and isn't a industrialized country.

Well neither do I but be that as it may giving them a pass on a decade of pollution when they are already the biggest polluters doesn't seem all that good of a deal for us.

In other news, Trump continues to make friends.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...25780535062528

And what the mayor said:

Seems to me like Trump pretty much nailed the gist of it. Because we know that if US had just experienced two terror attacks in as many weeks he'd be excoriated for saying there is nothing to be alarmed about.

[vienna]

Trump, as usual, either intentionally, which I don't suspect, or in an ignorant and seriously misinformed knee-jerk, which is vastly more likely, has got it all wrong, a highly common condition for himself:

The London mayor did use those words in a morning-after news conference about the van and stabbing rampage. But in no way, shape or form did Khan say them about the terrorist attack.

When Khan said there was "no reason to be alarmed," he was talking about the increased police presence around the city that residents and tourists would notice.

Khan condemned the attacks at London Bridge and Borough Market.

Donald Trump's tweet misleads about London mayor's reaction to bridge, stabbing attacks:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ndon-mayors-r/

I guess when you're a president (or one of his acolytes) who is grasping at straws to save his political skin, distortion of facts for political gain, even in the midst of a national and international tragedy, is not unexpected...



<O>

[Mr Quatro]

I wonder if Mr Khan being a good Muslim has anything to do with Trump's thinking?

[Platapus]

Trump is not a person who is overly concerned with facts.

[vienna]

^^Nominee for Understatement Of The Year...




<O>

[August]

Interesting article. Our internal divisions may be our societies down fall.

After London Bridge, The World Is Sick Of Politicians Downplaying Terrorism

Our political leaders are basically telling us that this kind of terrorism, random and deadly, is the price we have to pay for their policies of multiculturalism and political correctness.


By Megan G. Oprea June 5, 2017



As if on cue, in the wake of Saturday’s terrorist attack in London political leaders are trotting out the usual treacly lines that have become so rote. But the words they pretend will provide comfort to anyone but the most naïve are borderline worthless. Worse, they’re an insult to the families who have had to experience the shocking pain of the sudden loss of a family member or friend at the hands of a terrorist.


Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, called Saturday’s attack “deliberate and cowardly,” and asked “all Londoners to remain calm and vigilant today and in the days ahead.” Most notably, he said: “You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this. We are the safest global city in the world.”
What a thing to say at a time like this. Shouldn’t Britons be alarmed? Isn’t Saturday’s attack in London, coming as it did on the heels of the Manchester bombing, deeply disturbing? Why isn’t Khan more concerned about the threats that are so obviously at the doorstep, or better put, in Britain’s streets? Does anyone really take comfort from being told about swift police response times after yet another terrorist attack?
Our Politicians Can’t Handle the Truth

The sad truth, and getting sadder with every attack, is that the political class has little interest in doing what would really be necessary to combat Islamist terrorism, let alone talk about it. They don’t want to talk about how Britain’s lax immigration policies over decades led to hundreds of thousands of immigrants entering the country with varying degrees of willingness to assimilate and adopt Western values. They don’t want to openly criticize the blatant problems with the multiculturalism the UK has pursued for years and the obvious impact it has had on the immigrant population.


Oh no. This would cost them too much. It would shatter the façade of political correctness that’s been constructed over our “civilized” western world, and destroy the illusion, so vital to the political class, that Western values are universal.


The politicians are only willing to give speeches about how united we are and how terrorists cannot tear us apart. But the truth—so clear and obvious—is that with every attack the West becomes more and more divided. We are not united, not by a long shot. Before the bodies of the poor souls who were killed Saturday by radical Islamists were even identified, the Left and Right were at one another’s throats. On that score, the terrorists emerge victorious every time.


Yes, there are beautiful and touching scenes of strangers helping one another, opening their homes, offering free rides. This is a reminder of the goodness that still exists as part of our shared humanity. But such gestures don’t, ultimately, unite us. Neither do candlelight vigils and marches through the streets of Paris—or tearful pop concerts in Manchester.


There’s little to no tolerance in polite society for the kind of honesty for which many in the West are hungry. The Washington Post ran a headline Sunday that read, “World Leaders Call For Unity After London Attack. Trump tweets the complete opposite.” The article chastises President Trump for not joining in the fake condolences and platitudes of the political elite, and praises those elites for their messages of hope. But what, exactly, are they saying we should be hopeful for?


Trump, who is often wrong, was correct in tweeting Sunday that, “We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people.” A growing number of those people are scared, and sick of turning on the news to hear of yet another heartbreaking attack then hearing the same meaningless bromides from their leaders.


They want a leader who doesn’t just try to inure them to this kind of random violence but stands up and says that we’re not going to take it, that this isn’t an acceptable status quo. Whether Trump is that leader is highly debatable, but at least he’s making a nod toward it.


But whenever political leaders do dare to talk candidly about some of these problems, there’s intense push back and outrage. Take Trump’s travel ban. Like it or hate it, the ban was aimed at curbing immigration from countries that are de facto failed states. These are places where a terrorist could easily go unnoticed by whatever remnant of a security service remains and fly to the United States undetected. When Trump unveiled his travel ban earlier this year, America practically devoured itself with protests at airports, counter-protests, and a wave of lawsuits. The reaction robbed us of any real chance of having a conversation about the ways in which we might need to reconsider our immigration policies for the sake of national security.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/05/...ing-terrorism/