Trump's trying to regain momentum with his base, and this is a seemingly inconsequential way for him to do so. It's the same philosophy he followed when he ordered construction workers to look busy by moving dirt around.

The most consequential thing Trump has done so far is how he's managed DHS. They shot a black american citizen recently, they've been deporting soldiers who served in the army, they've been deporting people going to and leaving immigration hearings trying to go through the process of legalizing, if there's anything we need to be concerned about it's this.

6/1/2017 5:33:55 PM

jesus

6/1/2017 6:01:51 PM

Love this article for it's simplicity for the impact the withdrawal of President Obama's agreement to begin the process of when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal will have on the planet actually healing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-climate-agreement-what-you-need-to-know/

Quote :

"What happens if the U.S. pulls out of the Paris Agreement? The process of the U.S. withdrawing from the agreement could take at least three years, and scientists warn such a decision could have dire consequences for the planet. The Associated Press recently asked two dozens climate scientists what would happen if the U.S. reneges on its commitments under the Paris Agreement. They said that doing so would make it much more difficult to prevent crossing a dangerous threshold in global temperatures. Withdrawing from the deal could result in an additional 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere each year, speeding up the rate of rising sea levels and melting ice sheets. The U.S. could contribute to an increase of as much as 0.3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by the end of the century if if abandons the deal, according to one simulation. "The U.S. matters a great deal," Climate Interactive co-director Andrew Jones told the AP. "That amount could make the difference between meeting the Paris limit of two degrees and missing it." "

Wait wait wait...because we are withdrawing from this non-binding agreement that isn't enforceable by any constitutional requirement, ONE SIMULATION predicts the planet's temperature will rise by 0.3 C over 83 years?!?!

BUT, THAT'S 0.0036144578313253 DEGREES A YEAR!



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

6/1/2017 7:40:18 PM

why are you so bad with logic?

6/1/2017 8:19:34 PM

^^So if the number is small enough it's not significant? Nothing else matters?

Tell you what: Ingest .002 grams of ricin (that's less than your degrees per year number!). Report back to us your results.

6/1/2017 8:42:30 PM

Today's speech was an opportunity for trump to have another "win" ceremony and "accomplish" something. Thats all.

Quote :

"But here's what I don't understand based on that caveat: If the agreement held no one to any penalties, that is, if the agreement was toothless, why exactly was it so urgent to pull out?"

The agreement consisted of promises and self-imposed policies that were mostly enacted through executive orders. Trump is ending those policies as well as cutting the funding that goes towards meeting promises for the future. We could have done all of this without leaving the agreement (like some countries would have done anyway), but at least we're being honest and transparent.

We also could have stayed in the agreement, watered down the policies, and continued to champion ourselves for saving the planet. Everybody would have been happy with that but the result would have been the same. It would have essentially been like Michelle Obama's "drink up" campaign that was really just propaganda from the soda companies.

Quote :

" And if the agreement was good but had no teeth, we're leaving because somehow the thing that would never penalize us was not fair to us?"

Our "promises" went further than China and India's "promises". That is the part they say wasn't "fair". The age old climate debate has essentially always come down to looking at emissions on a national basis where China and India are top culprits or a per capita basis where china and india are not really culprits at all. Neither perspective is "fair" from the other perspective.

[Edited on June 1, 2017 at 11:33 PM. Reason : paris agreement ignored the science]

6/1/2017 11:22:09 PM

Quote :

"^^So if the number is small enough it's not significant? Nothing else matters? Tell you what: Ingest .002 grams of ricin (that's less than your degrees per year number!). Report back to us your results."

That is a strawman argument

6/2/2017 12:09:41 AM

the current Paris deal expires on November 4, 2020, 1 day after the 2020 Presidential Election

also, the process to get out of it takes 3 years

thanks for calming me down, Pod Save America

6/2/2017 12:15:58 AM

^^Sure, because kdogg presented no argument to begin with.

6/2/2017 12:29:16 AM

Not to mention the US is 5% of the world's population. .3 x 20= 6

6/2/2017 12:36:29 AM

"AMERICA FIRST" was the ethos of this dude's campaign, and people are surprised he did this? This one was a floater. He also called climate change a hoax over and over and pledged to withdraw from this very agreement. Now obviously with many of his campaign talking points, it turns out governing is harder than bluster, and he's reconsidered a wide range of issues, but this one was too well positioned with his base/campaign to go back on.

Quote :

"That is a strawman argument"

Nope. Not even close to a strawman.

Quote :

"Our "promises" went further than China and India's "promises". That is the part they say wasn't "fair". The age old climate debate has essentially always come down to looking at emissions on a national basis where China and India are top culprits or a per capita basis where china and india are not really culprits at all. Neither perspective is "fair" from the other perspective."

I'd like to explore this disparity in "promises" more. Someone give me a good link plz.

Also he said "non-binding" a bunch of times as justification for us pulling out of the agreement. Since this agreement was just a pledge/promise, and non-binding as he says, how does illuminating that fact support his "AMERICA FIRST" justification for pulling out of the agreement?

6/2/2017 12:55:00 AM

That's the problem with these agreements that Presidents (all of them) have signed.

Unless they are ratified by the Senate, there is no binding, and the President himself has to rely on overreaching executive powers (via regulations and czars) to enact, which are easily done away with pending a switch in executive branch, as is the case with all of the agreements Obama signed.

He tried to use his power as chief of the Executive Branch, assuming the tidal wave of his awesomeness would usher in a millennia of Democratic presidents, to keep his agenda. He did this because he knew he would never get the support for ratification from the Senate (that is, how a representative republic should actually work). He failed to realize that not everyone in the country agrees with him or the "science" of global cooling (1970s)/global warming (80s/90s)/climate change (00s/10s) enough to hitch our wagons to the global restructuring and global regressive tax that the Paris Agreement actually was.

Just look at the people (who run the corporations) who would have benefited the most from the Paris Agreement, and have criticized it the most heavily:

Elon Musk - dude owns a "carbon-free" car company
Tom Steyer - dude is making his money by advocating for climate change
Al Gore - same as Tom Steyer

6/2/2017 5:57:33 AM

He was roundly and almost unanimously criticized by heads of company's of all kinds from Disney to GE to Tesla to Goldman Sachs. Some of this is posturing to avoid public backlash I'm sure but young, talented people WANT to work for companies who feel that way and executives know that. FFS, I work at a company known for being one of the most conservative in NC and even they make this a HUGE priority.

But let's not act like the criticism was a few green energy companies and that's it. This was a move to placate a slipping base (both Nates - Cohn and Silver - have pointed to that recently) at the expense of the vast majority of the country and their views.

*** one last thought - I am not an expert on this agreement but it appears Trump had no clue what it was either and still sees foreign policy as zero-sum and defaults to "I can renegotiate it" which in this case is silly given nothing was binding.

[Edited on June 2, 2017 at 6:30 AM. Reason : X]

6/2/2017 6:25:19 AM

Quote :

" the Senate (that is, how a representative republic should actually work)"

A representative republic where constituent voices are counted as (at best) 3/5ths of a person and oil companies are counted as 3000/5ths.

This is just Exxon (and probably Rosneft knowing Trump) throwing their collective weight around.

6/2/2017 7:06:01 AM

Yeah, Trump should have sent it to Senate for a vote like Obama should have done

[Edited on June 2, 2017 at 7:53 AM. Reason : G]

6/2/2017 7:53:17 AM

^^ Exxon wanted us to stay in the agreement

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/exxon-conoco-back-paris-climate-deal-as-trump-weighs-pact-exit

[Edited on June 2, 2017 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

6/2/2017 10:17:28 AM

*their public relations department issued a statement claiming they wanted to stay in it.

They're still funding the heartland institute and giving money to climate denying congress people. It's greenwashing.

6/2/2017 10:22:21 AM

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-house-secret-efforts-lift-russia-sanctions-putin-619508

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/former-diplomats-trump-team-sought-lift-sanctions-russia-n767406

Simply amazing.

6/2/2017 12:27:59 PM

what do y'all think about this

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/us-now-can-ask-travelers-facebook-twitter-handles/102393236/

6/3/2017 2:30:30 AM

?http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/03/politics/nikki-haley-donald-trump-climate-change-cnntv/index.html

of course, it is too much to ask for trump to give one answer on anything. that, compounded with the fact that he thinks republicans are stupid, means he give different answers to the same questions depending on his audience.



http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/03/politics/france-climate-video/index.html

france took a 40-second US presentation about why it is pulling out and corrected all the errors lies.

6/4/2017 5:09:52 AM

Leftist hack posts leftist news outlet bitching about people not agreeing with leftist policy... no way

6/4/2017 2:57:06 PM

So is he deliberately trying to undermine himself? I'm confused at this point..

6/5/2017 9:17:44 AM

He likely has some sort of mental deficiency.

6/5/2017 4:26:09 PM

He's deliberately trying to give the media new petty material to criticise him over. It muddies the water and brings his opposition down to his level. I don't know what its going to take for you people to identify his strategy. He has been on wash and repeat ever since it worked in the first GOP debates.

6/5/2017 4:58:19 PM

My guess is that he's not expecting a win from the Supreme Court and is just playing to his base at this point.

6/5/2017 5:05:40 PM

Quote :

"I don't know what its going to take for you people to identify his strategy"

It's too late for them. To break out of the Trump Outrage/Fake News loop would require individual thought, something that goes out the window when you become a leftist.

6/5/2017 6:04:41 PM

^^^ it's undermining his entire policy agenda. I'm glad he is an idiot and isn't able to get anything done. From a policy perspective he's a complete do-nothing president.

[Edited on June 5, 2017 at 6:20 PM. Reason : I'm perfectly happy for him to his continue to campaign to his base. It's just odd.]

6/5/2017 6:18:11 PM

Republicans never wanted any new policy anyway. This way congress can't "fix" anything and Trump gets to continue to fill the courts. Its a win-win for them even if you get to think its a loss.

[Edited on June 5, 2017 at 7:30 PM. Reason : they can blame trump for their lack of action]

6/5/2017 7:30:22 PM

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#58758ec06b4a

It's hard to fathom how much of a wretched human being you need to be to do this.

And if anyone calls Forbes a liberal or leftist rag they can fuck themselves.

6/6/2017 2:43:09 PM

What about the author? Out of the past 100 articles or tweets he has done, how many:

-Paint Trump in a positive light
-Paint a democrat in a negative light?

6/6/2017 3:33:33 PM

It might be left-leaning, but that doesn't mean it's "fake" or "untrue", like you and yours seem to believe.

"It's mean to Trump??? IT'S #FAKE!!!"

6/6/2017 4:47:42 PM

Are we going to talk about his support for SA against Qatar after he used to be against SA and Clinton's support of SA?

6/6/2017 4:51:50 PM

what about 9/11??????

6/6/2017 4:53:20 PM

^^ seriously. that might completely fuck our entire middle east strategy as CENTCOM is based in Qatar, and with a fucking tweet our boy Mango Unchained may have poked a beast he shouldn't have.

6/6/2017 6:09:39 PM

The trump tweet about Middle East countries pointing their fingers at Qatar made me laugh out loud at work. Wtf is that?!!!

6/6/2017 6:59:51 PM

he and B4C have a very similar/limited understanding of the world and how it works

[Edited on June 6, 2017 at 7:26 PM. Reason : he really is B4C, but just happens to be POTUS]

6/6/2017 7:25:30 PM

Wow, he really has a 2nd grade understanding of the world

Quote :

""So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!""

Seriously???

What a child!

He admitted after meeting Chinese premier that NK situation was far more complicated than he thought.

He also admitted that being POTUS was far more difficult than he thought it would be.

Next month we will see him admit that the ME terrorism situation is far more complicated than terrorism ending just because some Arab countries have cut off relations with Qatar.

6/6/2017 8:00:30 PM

I'm very much looking forward to him leaving office. The guy is a disaster.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/russian-hackers-planted-fake-news-qatar-crisis/index.html

Quote :

"Washington (CNN)US investigators believe Russian hackers breached Qatar's state news agency and planted a fake news report that contributed to a crisis among the US' closest Gulf allies, according to US officials briefed on the investigation. Intelligence gathered by the US security agencies indicates that Russian hackers were behind the intrusion first reported by the Qatari government two weeks ago, US officials say. Qatar hosts one of the largest US military bases in the region. The alleged involvement of Russian hackers intensifies concerns by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies that Russia continues to try some of the same cyber-hacking measures on US allies that intelligence agencies believe it used to meddle in the 2016 elections. US officials say the Russian goal appears to be to cause rifts among the US and its allies. In recent months, suspected Russian cyber activities, including the use of fake news stories, have turned up amid elections in France, Germany and other countries."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/world/middleeast/trump-qatar-saudi-arabia.html

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — President Trump thrust himself into a bitter Persian Gulf dispute on Tuesday, claiming credit for Saudi Arabia’s move to isolate its smaller neighbor, Qatar, which is a major American military partner. “During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology,” Mr. Trump said in a morning tweet. “Leaders pointed to Qatar — look!” Qatar has long been accused of funneling arms and money to radical groups in Syria, Libya and other Arab countries. But so has Saudi Arabia. And Mr. Trump’s tweets have huge potential strategic consequences in the Middle East, where Qatar is a crucial military outpost for the United States. A peninsula that juts into the Persian Gulf, Qatar is home to the forward headquarters of the United States Central Command. It is a major intelligence hub for the United States in the Middle East and the base where the United States plans and carries out airstrikes on the Islamic State."

[Edited on June 6, 2017 at 8:03 PM. Reason : a]

6/6/2017 8:01:43 PM

Jesus.

I guess we gotta move abunch of military bases!

6/6/2017 8:47:20 PM

It's fine. State already reached out to Qatar.

People need to just stop paying attention to the president.

6/6/2017 9:09:00 PM

Quote :

"People need to just stop paying attention to the president."

Hmm. Nope, makes zero sense to me. Stop paying attention to the guy with the nuclear codes?

6/6/2017 9:13:25 PM

^ Trump tweets as official white house statements: https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot

6/6/2017 9:38:42 PM

So now Sessions is offering his resignation? The White House is just one big revolving door of failure.

Who in the world would want to work there at this point?

6/6/2017 10:26:35 PM

No, not now.

He did at some point in the past, allegedly.

6/6/2017 11:22:02 PM

Is their any history in running attack ads against private citizens not running for office? That Comey ad is so odd...

Also, he nominated Christopher Wray for FBI director, who I've never heard of but people seem to say is a good choice. Timing of it will surely be used to assault Comey's character.

6/7/2017 7:59:20 AM

Eh the anti-trump crowd is upset with Wray for three reasons:
1. Wray was Christie's "bridgegate" Lawyer
2. Wray is a partner at law firm representing Rosneft, a Russian oil company
3. Wray's law firm advises Trump's trust

I'm biased as fuck but I can't see a scenario in which Trump would nominate someone without being assured they'd end the FBI's Russian investigation, but whatever. Not much Democrats can do at this point.

6/7/2017 10:02:18 AM

I wonder what would happen if he did actually end up firing Mueller or something to that effect.

6/7/2017 10:30:38 AM

It's within his rights so not much. Nothing stopping him from ordering the DAG to fire him (of course the DAG can step down but he'd find a sycophant somewhere down the line to do it). He could also just pardon anyone close to him (and iirc himself) if it came down to it.

Either one of those things would assure a dem majority in house and him being primaries from all sides and/or losing in 2020.

[Edited on June 7, 2017 at 11:12 AM. Reason : Just like firing Comey was in his right -- just not smart]

6/7/2017 11:11:52 AM

^Yea that's what I meant. I know he can legally do it. I just wonder what the response would be by the public, by Congress, etc. Would it lead to some immense amount of pressure where impeachment proceedings were initiated? Things like that.

6/7/2017 12:03:17 PM

so is he getting fired or not? come on guys, i have a match tonight.

6/9/2017 5:10:13 AM