Trump Is Pulling US Out of Paris Climate Deal: Sources (axios.com) 737
An anonymous reader shares a report: President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They're deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal -- which could take 3 years -- or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme. Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel Obama's climate legacy. It sends a combative signal to the rest of the world that America doesn't prioritize climate change and threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal. News agency Reuters has corroborated the report with its own source. Further reading on Politico (which has also corroborated the news) and BBC. Update: Trump Announces US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord.
Pulling out (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll always have the pullout in Paris.
Re:Pulling out (Score:4, Funny)
I would recommend never putting it into Paris to begin with.
Re:Pulling out (Score:5, Funny)
A frustrated Paris could not be reached for comment.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. . .
I had no idea they were mutually exclusive.
Re:Pulling out (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. . .
I had no idea they were mutually exclusive.
They aren't. "Republic" has two meanings.
1. Not a monarchy.
2. Representative democracy
The first definition is by far the most common. But in America, and only America, the second definition is also common. In neither case does the definition exclude democracy. Canada and Japan are not republics but are democracies, while China and Cuba are republics but are not democracies. For the second definition, democracy is specifically included, since a representative democracy is still a democracy, just not a direct democracy.
But some Americans insist that in a "true" democracy every decision must be made directly by the people. So if, say, the bulb in a streetlight needs to be replaced, we need to hold a referendum. To them it is obvious that America is not a democracy.
Re: Pulling out (Score:3)
"A republic, if you can keep it."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sanctions (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump might get that trade war after all as Europe and other like-minded trading blocs impose import tariffs.
But wherever the Republicans go, Australia's Liberals follow so it's no comfort living here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump might get that trade war after all as Europe and other like-minded trading blocs impose import tariffs.
I certainly hope Europe is able to take the mantle of leader of the free world while the US gets its act back together. I am a proud American, but I'm a human first. My country is the second largest polluter in the world, and the largest per capita. I hope more sensible countries around the world band together to show the more ignorant members of my country we cannot get away with it forever. Tariffs or sanctions against the U.S. for its inaction would be a good start.
Re:Sanctions (Score:4, Insightful)
I certainly hope Europe is able to take the mantle of leader of the free world while the US gets its act back together. I am a proud American, but I'm a human first. My country is the second largest polluter in the world, and the largest per capita. I hope more sensible countries around the world band together to show the more ignorant members of my country we cannot get away with it forever. Tariffs or sanctions against the U.S. for its inaction would be a good start.
List of the top 5 polluters by CO2 emissions:
1) China
2) USA
3) European Union
4) India
5) Russia
Here's your real problem. Note that 3 of the so-called BRICS nations are number 1, 4 and 5 on that list. Of those 3 nations on the list, only China really cares any about the environment and even then it's not much. None of them are ever going to really reduce their emissions if there is any chance it could hurt economic development. Even if the US did play along, China, India, Russia and others won't. They'll give lip service to the agreement, but they'll never actually implement enough to make a big difference.
Re:Sanctions (Score:5, Informative)
1 and 3 are going ahead anyway because they understand the economic implications:
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
India is steaming ahead with solar with plans to install 100s of GW's by a prime minister with a proven track record .
Russia, well, Putin, oil baron.
Re: Sanctions (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember having planned a trip to Europe, to a city where there was an attack a few days before I went. My friends and coworkers were freaking out, said I should cancel the trip. I went anyway, and had no problems. I even went right to the very site of the attacks, and saw the flowers/etc left in memorial. That and the reporter filming a piece were about the only indication that anything was amiss. Sure, I noticed some police patrolling around, but nothing that seemed unusual to an American. Some of them were armed, which again wasn't unusual to me as an American. But none of the spaces were closed off, tourists and locals were still flocking to large public spaces, drinking and eating at streetside cafes, et cetera.
Re: (Score:3)
So I guess terrorism is also the reason for the USA's predicament right? I mean the article you cited talks about the reason for the withdrawal being that the Socialist Party was elected and that was one of their election promises. I mean it's not like socialism has been on the rise in places that have had no bombings or terrorism at all right?*
*In case you can't tell this is sarcastic. Your cite is stupid on the face of it and you should feel stupid for drawing the conclusion that you did.
Re: (Score:3)
First of all, citing the heritage foundation is a very clear signal where you're coming from.
Second, the Socialist Party was elected not because of the terrorist attack, but because the conservative People's Party joined the Bush wars, which was a very unpopular opinion in Spain. The Socialist Party was never in favor of joining the wars and promised to pull the troops out long before the terrorist attack happened. Pulling out was the logical consequence after they won the elections.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We also produce half of the inventions that make life better and longer. Perhaps we would all be better off if the rest of the world was more like us, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
Our electoral systems works just fine. It is designed to get the majority of power, and of electing the president based on the unit of STATES. This is so that each state has a relative voice in who is elected president which should force the candidates to take in all state issues (which vary
Re: (Score:2)
Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, finally and at last - we can begin to set our standards as high as Syria and Nicaragua! [wikipedia.org]
I can't wait for the good 'ol USA to start living the good life like those guys. Makes you proud.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness they're ending climate change. (Score:5, Funny)
Have you seen some of the research on this? The long-term impacts may be catastrophic, and it's already fairly clear to anyone who cares to pay attention that climate change is already started! I find it really hard to believe anyone thought a treaty to cause climate change was a good idea in the first place.
This is going to be fun (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine all countries imposing pollution tariffs on everything made in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You say that as if anything was made in China or India...
One Man (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump has really highlighted how much power/influence we choose to give to a single person. It amazes me that a president can unilaterally enter into or exit from agreements of this magnitude. If he has any positive legacy, I hope it's a legacy where we decided to further limit the power of the presidency.
If we were to write a book for children of good vs. evil, it would be hard to cast Trump as the "good guy". Even if he were cast as the "bad guy", he makes decisions that seem so clearly wrong that it would be rejected as too cliche.
Re: (Score:2)
Which POTUS would you cast as the good guy? Who should have the authority to enter the country into such global agreements? Who is safe to wield this sort of power, and what is the accountability they would have that solves the problems you have with Trump?
Re: (Score:3)
Even in it's dysfunction, I still prefer congress. Gerrymandering and oligarchy arguments aside, they seem to be a better representation of "the people". If "we" are going to make bad decisions, I prefer to make them collectively. It doesn't make them right decisions, but hopefully more people will accept responsibility to fix the mistakes if they feel they helped cause them.
Re:One Man (Score:5, Informative)
The President has the power to negotiate treaties and contracts but they're not binding on the US until the legislature ratifies it.
Obama NEVER sent the treaty to congress for ratification - because it wouldn't pass to begin with and tried some legal chicanery to try to say that it was "deemed" ratified because it fell under existing UN treaty agreements previous congress' already signed off on and besides with world political pressure (that Obama continues to foment) the US would be forced to comply.
But that's ok - you can continue your fantasy that Obama is the "good guy" and Trump is the "bad guy" because you liked Obama's decisions and methods... except you hate them when they're used against you.
Re:One Man (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's ok - you can continue your fantasy that Obama is the "good guy" and Trump is the "bad guy" because you liked Obama's decisions and methods... except you hate them when they're used against you.
That's kind of how presidencies work. A good president uses powers for the people, a bad one against them.
Mind you good and bad could be taken in many contexts. Such as ability to befriend overseas nations vs insult them. Or just ability to express a coherent thought.
Re: (Score:3)
The President has the power to negotiate treaties and contracts but they're not binding on the US until the legislature ratifies it.
That's a specific type of treaty. Known as a Congressional-Executive Agreement, which technically isn't a treaty, is when the President haggles, er negotiates, some sort of "whatever" and then goes and asks nicely for Congress to put it in the books. CEAs are typically used for trade of non-military/weapon stuff, entering in and exiting organizations (like WTO), foreign aids that should last longer than a single President term, and so on. However, according to Article 1 Section 10, States can also enter
Leading from behind... (Score:5, Insightful)
What "Obama Climate Legacy"? (Score:2)
So...what "Obama Climate Legacy" are we proud of again?
Re: (Score:2)
Can we sue the President? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the potentially most affected people are trying: http://www.rollingstone.com/po... [rollingstone.com]
Good (Score:2)
Make it the G6 (Score:3)
Mistake for political reasons (Score:4, Informative)
I believe the science behind AGW, but I do not think these global attempts to restrict carbon emissions are realistic.
With that said, giving up participation in these treaties is a poor choice. I don't mind the US giving up some of our leadership role in the world, but this was low-hanging fruit. It also had the secondary effect of lowering our dependence on foreign oil, which has broader strategic benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is not really that dependent on foreign oil anymore. In fact, about 70% of our oil needs are met by our own oil production. Of what oil from 'foreign' sources we do get, about half comes from that far-off land called 'Canada'. We're exporting quite a bit now, to be honest, the US could be basically self-sufficient at this point.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]
The Paris deal is nothing (Score:3, Informative)
China has double the US Emissions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
India's emissions are gaining.
The Paris deal lets countries set their own goals ('Nationally Determined Contributions') and isn't legally binding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So really the Paris Agreement is a plan made up by idealogues who want to 'save the planet'. Those ideologues want to set strict goals in the US (and the EU), affecting Western economies, while countries like India, China, and Russia set goals that do little to curb their emissions (and, of course, don't hurt their own economy)
In short, it's political theater that hurts the west.
Re:The Paris deal is nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
China also has over four times as many citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Paris deal is nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
China has double the US Emissions
India's emissions are gaining.
Not bad for being the worlds factory and having 4x US population. Currently China is sitting on about half U.S. emissions on a per-capita basis.
India is sitting at an eighth on a per-capita basis. Most of the disparity is locked up in extremely poor living standards nobody reading this would themselves appreciate being subjected to.
If you want to see what climate change really looks like wait until both countries reach per-capita emissions parity with the US.
This is why even pretending to care about the e
Re: (Score:3)
Moot point. You're comparing a completely modern 1st-world economy to countries that have higher populations living in primitive conditions than they do in modern conditions.
There's only 300m Chinese that are actively participating in the economy and considered 'middle' class. The other billion are dirt-poor. If you consider that 300-500 million in China represent 30% of total global emissions, what happens when 3 times that many start taking part in the Chinese economy?
India has even less people living mo
What if we make a better world for nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
And? (Score:3)
The question is; What are you going to do about it? Sitting online and complaining is going to do exactly squat.
The way I see it, there are two different groups in this nation. The first group sees that there is a major problem, although most don't realize the full extent of the problem. They want to see significant changes, but lack the tools to properly address the situation. Many members of this group lack the willingness to use the needed tools, even if they were provided. The second group has the needed tools and has demonstrated the willingness to use them. However, they don't think that there is a problem, or that change is needed right now.
I don't know what's going to happen over the next year or so, but somehow I think we'll look back on this as "before everything went completely to hell."
I'd call their bluff if I was him (Score:2)
He said he was doing this from the beginning (Score:5, Insightful)
Paris agreement's goals are laughable (Score:3)
What ever else you want to say about the Paris Agreement, it's temperature goals are laughable. Look at NOAA's temperature trends since 1880 [noaa.gov]. Temperatures have increased by 1.0 C since 1880, already. The Paris agreement suggests setting goals to keep temperatures below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. From the climate modelling the IPCC has collected, even a complete and absolute global ban on all CO2 emissions tomorrow would NOT reach the 1.5C goal. The existing emissions already out there will ride us over 1.5C before 2100.
Climate Change Procrastination (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the worst arguments I see on here are that China causes more carbon emissions. Sure imagine you're stranded on a boat with 10 other people and wearing a red shirt while everyone has a blue shirt. You're eating 5 times the amount of rations but arguing that you shouldn't cut back because "blue" is already eating more. This is why emissions per capita matters. Carbon emissions are directly related to food production and general economic wealth of a nation. As a resident of a well off nation, it stands to hurt us the least to cut back a little. The only way China can cut back is to effectively downgrade their economics so badly that it will probably start killing people.
So yeah, wealth redistribution it is, but folks forget that we're already doing that. There are far far more poorer folks out there worldwide and when nature inevitably bites back due to climate change it will hit the poor much harder but we share the same planet. Expect more environmental refugees and don't be surprised if folks start fighting more. After all if you're staving to death because you don't have water or food or a way of living, blowing up your neighbour who seems to have everything, deserved or not seems like a good option.
It's why we should pro-actively try to fix this even if it seems hopeless, letting it go to the latter doesn't sound like fun at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer [nextbigfuture.com] than coal. 60 deaths per TWh for coal power worldwide avg, vs 0.04 deaths per TWh for nuclear, so a factor of 1500 better.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
They have Nuclear reactors that can be designed where it is impossible for them to meltdown.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than coal....
Tell me that during the next meltdown.
Similar to "traveling by aircraft is safer than traveling by car". Airplane crash immediately affects more people and is more newsworthy and thus gains the spotlight. Sure, coal and cars have been around much longer to cause more deaths, but they've also been around longer to generate more safe energy/miles so that should balance out.
Disclaimer: I don't recall my source when I read of the statistics several years ago, so if there's new data that disproves this, let me know!
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi never happened, right? Marcoule in France, or the recent blast in Flamaville station?
And that's just a few of the accidents out of a long list of accidents on nuclear facilities, don't get me started on leaks incidents in waste storage facilities...
Because coal/oil/gas plants never explode and any associated spillage is fine right? How many millions of barrels of oil are dumped in the sea through carelessness or accident again? How much extra co2 is in the air trapping extra heat in the atmosphere? Nope, totally no polluting at all and let's all run away from big bad nuclear, ohhh its so scary I'll run and hide in my filth where it's safer.
Re: (Score:2)
. . .and long, slow deaths via lung cancer and black lung are hard to see on the macro level. Not to mention deaths in traditional coal mines (as opposed to strip-mined coal, which is ugly, but at least can be remediated afterwards. . .
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Chernobyl and Fukushima were old reactor designs. Chernobyl lacked the protective housing US designs required and Fukushima didn't follow US generator policy changes that were made in the 1970s for that type of reactor that said they needed to be protected from flooding if in a flood plain. Because the power grid was down and they had flooded generators, they weren't able to shut down the power plant. That was a known design problem with this very old reactor.
Marcoule and Flamaville were accidents that happened at nuclear reactors but neither were nuclear accidents. One was a furnace used to melt metals that contained an extremely low amount of hazardous radiation that exploded and the other was a turbine explosion. Ever seen a wind or gas turbine explode? It isn't all that uncommon.
Waste for the most part is unnecessary. Most if not all Gen IV reactors can breed what we call waste into fuel and passive safety is a requirement. What remains after these new reactors burn the fuel and waste will have radiation levels lower than background radiation in about 200-300 years, not thousands. Just and FYI if you haven't kept up.
Re: (Score:3)
We had two pebble bed reactor here in Germany. Both didn't work - the pebbles cracked and broke - and one of them is now the most contaminated site in Germany. The operator failed to clean up and now the government has to do that. The second one was probably the most expensive German reactor ever built and it operated only for four years with the best availability of 40% - a total failure. The reactor wasn't closed by the government, it was closed by the operator because operating cost was so high that it a
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Because Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi never happened, right? Marcoule in France, or the recent blast in Flamaville station?
And that's just a few of the accidents out of a long list of accidents on nuclear facilities, don't get me started on leaks incidents in waste storage facilities...
Of course they did. That's why the number is 0.04 instead of zero. That number also includes deaths due to mining uranium by the way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because plutonium is safer than carbon?
If Trump wanted to replace coal with nuclear, he could've stuck with the agreement. The nuclear industry was massively in favor of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
your ignorance is frightening
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd just prefer to have neither one in my backyard...
Perfectly happy sucking up the power from either though, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed [independent.co.uk]
In the report, there is this gem:
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Two concepts: externalized costs, and liquidity of assets. If your assets are sufficiently liquid, you can externalize your costs and then move your assets out of the way of the consequences. This represents a wealth distribution to people who not only avoid paying for the things they use (e.g. using the atmosphere as a dump), but can actually move their investments into things people have to buy because of pollution. In other words, if you're one of the billionaire investors bankrolling the climate deni
Let me fix that for you (Score:3)
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars (as a tax on fossil fuel use) out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Let me read between the lines for you, using this neat trick some of us have called inference.
Taxing fossil fuel use increases price and reduces demand for fossil fuel. Because people still require the services (transport, heating, powering industry etc) that fossil fuel currently is employed for, demand is increased for alternative GHG-emissions-free means of
Re: (Score:3)
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed [independent.co.uk]
In the report, there is this gem:
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
The first line of the news article:
A global carbon tax that would raise trillions of dollars if applied across the world should be introduced if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change
further in the article, quoting from the report.
“The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change,
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
When you buy a good that incurs pollution, you pass on the cost of that pollution to everyone else. If I choose to buy nuclear power and you choose coal power, I get the CO2 pollution regardless of my choice.
This is called an externality [wikipedia.org] and classically "economists often urge governments to adopt policies that 'internalize' an externality, so that costs and benefits will affect mainly parties who choose to incur them. For example, manufacturing activities that cause air pollution impose health and clean-up costs on the whole society".
The whole point of the tax is to make it more expensive to buy something that costs society money. Is it somehow unjust to have a cigarette tax that pays for lung cancer treatments in public hospitals?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you not getting anything in return.
Sure, if the money just stopped in the government's hands, but what about this trillion dollar deficit government leads you to believe they won't spend it? And what you get back is roads, schools, a military, all the things that make commerce efficient and safe! I can't tell if this is supposed to be an argument towards anarchy or total ignorance of the fact that the american government is a GIANT part of the economy. About the only thing they could do to "take the money out of the economy" would be to pay off our debt. But unless you are suggesting that we should never do that, I don't see an eventual way around that one.
Assuming that the money is 100% redistributed to people, they can do less with the money because economic activity has fallen. Nothing good comes out of this.
What? Are you experiencing some kind of fever dream where you type? Assuming that 4 trillion dollars were handed out to to populace at large, there would be the same effect as we see from income tax rebate time. Want to know how much that stimulates the economy, stop by a gamestop and ask any manager what kind of massive sales increase they see. Now multiply that by 10,000. Short term, if such a reckless plan were enacted, you would see massive inflation, but only due to supply, and that is precisely why the government would likely find a more responsible way of using the money. Like our crumbling roads that business drive their goods on, or huge investment in good paying green energy which will require massive hiring.
Honestly, you talk like nobody in the world even remotely asked anyone who knows anything about economics before proposing a carbon tax. We have these nifty guys called economists, and they have these fancy things called PHDs. In fact, other countries have them too! I am sure at least a few were consulted and didn't come up with the "this does nothing" claim that you seem to have arrived at.
But hey, Trump University might teach a different take on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of wealth redistribution : your cheque is in the mail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The left have been calling for his impeachment or assassination since before his inauguration. Their reasoning appears to be, "I don't agree with him so he should be impeached or assassinated". Modern leftists genuinely can't handle the fact that different people have different views, and when somebody voices an alternative view they fly into fits of rage and call for violence.
Few people still think he'll finish four years
Yes, few people in your echo chamber. If you dare to venture outside your safe space you'll find that other people think he's doi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why would I go to right wing echo champers like Brietbart and gab and reddit, where they routinely ignore evidence?
Lets look at your post for example, it shows you know nothing of how the country works.
1) Obama was never Senate majority leader, not was he ever DNC chair, so your statement "but the then-leader of the Democratic party (senator Obama) chose not to prosecute because "it would divide the nation"." makes absolutely ZERO sense
2) In order for the senate to actual prosecute the house must FIRST vote
Re: (Score:2)
About 96% of voters said they would still vote for Trump, compared to 94% of Clinton voters.
I would really love to know where you got those numbers from. Considering polling of Trump voters shows an approval rating somewhere in the low 40s consistently, how do you come up with the notion that 96% of them would vote for him again?
It is worthwhile to consider that a very significant number of republicans turned out and cast votes for Trump because of Hillary Clinton more so than anything else. Had Trump ran against anyone else - basically any democrat not named Clinton - he would have lost by
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who has the Evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything you mention is driven by Anonymous Sources. Like ACs on Slashdot, you can't trust them, you don't know if they are real or not, and they are usually wrong.
The White House is leaking like a sieve, yet no evidence of any criminal activities or even generic "wrong doing" has emerged. I would think that if people wanted him out so desperately and they had the goods they would have provided the evidence by now.
Hell, they can't even articulate what crimes may have been committed. All they can do is thr
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who has the Evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obstruction of justice is a crime that has been committed.
Trump publically admitted to that one when he said he fired Comey over the russian investigation. Regardless of if there was any collusion or not Trump knew his administration was under investigation by Comey and fired him. That is obstruction of justice. He even double down on it when he revealed to the russians that he had made his life easier by firing Comey to end the investigation.
Trump has also definitely violated the Emoluments clause and could be impeached for that.
I don't know if his campaign colluded with Russia during the election and that is still being investigated.
Re: (Score:3)
[...] yet no evidence of any criminal activities or even generic "wrong doing" has emerged. [...] they would have provided the evidence by now. [...] Evidence...where is it?
Trump himself provided the evidence. He affirmed he fired Comey so the "russier" investigation would end quickly. That's obstruction of justice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think it's fair to call Trump a liberal. Sure, he's not a conservative, and he's a big fan of Soviet-style planned economics, but that doesn't mean he's a liberal. Sometimes a drama queen is labeled simply because they're nuts. Are you sure that's not what's going on here?
Re: (Score:2)
We are not calling for firing Pence. Just Trump.
Sure the liberal groups doesn't like Pence but his motivations are based on what he thinks is good for the country, and is able to understand the complexities in it. Trump is a 5 year old in a 70 year old body. Unable and unwilling to comprehend the complexities of the world and it is about himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What troll gave you the off-topic mod? Actually I came by to see if anyone had asked explicitly if trying to destroy the planet should count as grounds for impeachment? I actually think it might fit under "high crimes or misdemeanors" of some sort, but the fabulous founders couldn't cover EVERY base.
I think the intent was for elections to handle the rest.
Re: (Score:3)
The really unfortunate thing is that even if he was out tomorrow, the damage has already been done. The next in line is an asshat too. Chances are the EPA won't be restored to even what it was before he took over, let alone given the additional powers it needs.
I can't see any good way the US can get through the next four years, it's going to be bad no matter what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bush's wars ran up a significant debt as well. Don't forget about that.
Re: (Score:2)
That said Pence may be a non-issue. Trump is an incredibly spiteful person and it would not be the least bit out of character for him to take Pence down with him. That would ordinarily leave Paul Ryan in charge, but if we look to what happened with Nixon we see that Ford was not Speaker of t
Re:Who has money on his resignation / impeachment? (Score:5, Informative)
The ONLY 'Constitutional Crisis' has been over the travel restrictions. That is only a crisis because of activist judges. Judges who in even recent times would have been hound (rightly so) from the bench for even suggesting that the President's personal prejudices should have any bearing whatsoever on the plain meaning of the law.
You misspelled "executive order". Executive orders are not laws, and they (quite rightly) get a very different level of scrutiny from the courts. Because they're the dictates of a single individual, that individual's motivations in issuing them definitely are relevant to questions of their constitutionality. There are countless examples of this in the judicial record, especially with respect to orders issued by law enforcement officials and state governors. The intent of the order has a great deal of bearing on its constitutionality.
This principle hasn't (AFAIK) been applied to presidential executive orders until now, but that's only because past presidents (with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson) haven't been batshit crazy. Note that I'm not saying executive orders haven't been struck down, several have, just that the analysis of intent hasn't been explicitly considered. SCOTUS came close by lightly analyzing intent when they struck down Obama's recess appointments, and it can be argued that intent was a factor in their decision (though I don't think it was really necessary to consider intent in that case; it was a pretty clear subversion of the constitutional process).
BTW, before you go calling me a "liberal", I should point out that I voted for the Republican candidate for president in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. In 2016 I voted for a conservative independent in order to avoid voting for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Show any data demonstrating that Independents are one way or the other on climate change. The only people who've been aggressively on Obama's side on this has been the Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
No, many independents believe in climate change, shoot even many conservatives are starting to believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think almost everyone left and right has believed it for at least the last 5 years, it's just that it became partisan.
It's always easier to tear up an agreement than to reach one, what alternative plan is being proposed here aside from poke the other side in the eye ?
No Treaty (Score:5, Informative)
What's to tear up?
Obama had no authority to commit the US to anything. All he did by signing that was to indicate that HE would use his executive power to guide policies and regulations i support of the agreement. Once Obama Left, the agreement was dead. Trump can simply reverse the policies and procedures put into place and ignore the rest of the agreement.
Nothing in that "agreement" has the force of law. Only treaties that have been ratified by the Senate can have any legal effect.
Re:When Hillary criticized Trump in the debate (Score:4, Informative)
They may well believe it, but it's not one of the top 3 issues for them: those remain the economy, healthcare and terrorism. Climate change comes somewhere after that, even if they believe it. And support for the Paris agreement is just not there outside the Democrat Party, which explains why the entire Senate refused to endorse the Paris agreement - both Republicans and Democrats!
Re: (Score:2)
Show any data demonstrating that Independents are one way or the other on climate change.
Nearly 70% of registered voters believe the US should participate in the Paris Climate Agreement [yale.edu]
While only 53% of Independents believe the Earth is getting warmer primarily because of human activity [pewinternet.org], they overwhelmingly believe we should at least be working with other world leaders to do what we can about climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
If governments actually cared, they would invest in Solar panels for residents to get off the grid.
The utilities would complain about not making money on supplying electricity at night, request massive fee hikes to compensate, and render solar power more expensive to support an industry that doesn't want to change.
What do catalytic converters have to do with it? (Score:2)
If anything, they INCREASE the amount of CO2 and water vapor (greenhouse gases) released by cars. This is considered an acceptable tradeoff in preference to unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which cause smog....