Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 02 2017, @03:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the promises-kept dept.

[Ed Note: What follows is the official press release from President Donald Trump at the White House. It marks the official stance of the United States pulling out of the Paris Agreement. Though there is certainly a political aspect to this, I would like to see if we can try to avoid political bickering and focus discussion on the actual details of the press release. See, also, our previous coverage, Report: Trump Plans to Exit Paris Climate Agreement. --martyb]

From the desk of President Donald J. Trump

For Immediate Release

June 01, 2017

President Trump Puts American Jobs First

“Our government rushed to join international agreements where the United States pays the costs and bears the burdens while other countries get the benefit and pay nothing.” – President Donald J. Trump

ALREADY THE WORLD’S ENERGY LEADER: The United States had already become the leader in cutting CO2 emissions while still leading in oil & gas production.

  • In the United States, energy related carbon dioxide emissions have significantly declined since before the Paris Climate Accord was negotiated, and will continue to decline as a share of worldwide emissions, particularly when compared to other nations such as China and India.
    • The Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2017 Annual Energy Outlook reports that, from 2005 to 2016, energy related carbon dioxide emissions fell at an average annual rate of 1.4%.
    • Emissions are projected to continue to fall from 2016 to 2040. 
    • Meanwhile, the EIA reports that emissions in the developing world are expected to double their 2005 levels by 2040.
  • According to recent U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States remained the world’s top producer of oil and natural gas combined.
  • The United States continues to be a world leader in energy, but increased competition from countries like China demonstrates the need for policies that enable America to compete on a global scale.

HARMFUL TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: The Paris Climate Accord could cost the United States economy millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in economic output over the next several decades.

  • According to an analysis by National Economic Research Associates (NERA), meeting President Obama’s commitment under the Paris Climate Accord would cost the United States nearly $3 trillion by 2040.
    • By 2040, the American economy could have 6.5 million fewer industrial sector jobs, including 3.1 million fewer manufacturing jobs.
    • Industries such as cement, iron and steel, coal, natural gas, and petroleum would be forced to cut production under President Obama’s Paris Climate Accord.

SHOULDERING THE BURDEN: Under the Paris Climate Accord, the United States would carry the burden while other countries would get the benefits.

  • Under the Obama Administration, which signed an agreement without having to deal with the economic repercussions, the United States was committed to reducing CO2 emissions by between 26 and 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
    • Meanwhile China can continue to increase emissions for the next 13 years.
  • The United States already contributed $1 billion to a UN Green Climate Fund. This would increase to $3 billion under pledges made by the previous Administration.

INEFFECTIVE: Even if every nation fully complied with the Paris Climate Accord, it would barely impact the climate.

  • According to researchers from MIT, if every nation that signed the Paris Climate Accord met all of their commitments until the end of the century, the impact on the climate would be negligible.

PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: President Trump is fulfilling his promise to the American people to stop international agreements that disadvantage the United States.

  • May 26, 2016, then-candidate Trump:
    • “President Obama entered the United States into the Paris Climate Accords— unilaterally, and without the permission of Congress.”
    • “So foreign bureaucrats are going to be controlling what we are using and what we are doing on our land in our country. No way.”

Original Submission

Related Stories

Report: Trump Plans to Exit Paris Climate Agreement 104 comments

President Donald Trump plans to make good on his campaign vow to withdraw the United States from a global pact to fight climate change, a source briefed on the decision said on Wednesday, a move that promises to deepen a rift with U.S. allies.

White House officials cautioned that details were still being hammered out and that, although close, the decision on withdrawing from the 195-nation accord - agreed to in Paris in 2015 - was not finalized.

[...] The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Trump was working out the terms of the planned withdrawal with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, an oil industry ally and climate change doubter.

[...] The CEOs of Dow Chemical Co, ExxonMobil Corp, Unilever NV and Tesla Inc all urged Trump to remain in the agreement, with Tesla's Elon Musk threatening to quit White House advisory councils of which he is a member if the president pulls out.

Source: Reuters

On Twitter, Trump indicated that an announcement was coming soon.

"I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days," he wrote. "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

[...] Opponents of the climate deal were concerned after White House economic advisor Gary Cohn told reporters that the president was "evolving on the issue" during his trip overseas.

His daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly channelled support for the deal behind the scenes at the White House, encouraging climate change activists that Trump might change his mind. Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon CEO, also supported remaining in the treaty.

Source: Brietbart


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @03:57AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @03:57AM (#519188)

    1. It don't matter. The US wasn't gonna meet the Paris agreement anyways.

    2. It don't matter. Either Trump will be out soon enough so that this pull-out won't mean anything, or Trump will stick around, in which case America will go down the drain so the rest of you lot can go on and do your own thang and don't need to worry about America cuz America won't matter.

    TL;DR: move along. Nothing to see here.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by n1 on Friday June 02 2017, @04:05AM (15 children)

    by n1 (993) on Friday June 02 2017, @04:05AM (#519190) Journal

    Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs apparently used this opportunity to make his first ever tweet. [twitter.com]

    Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.'s leadership position in the world. #ParisAgreement

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 02 2017, @04:10AM (1 child)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday June 02 2017, @04:10AM (#519191) Homepage

      Let the Californians deal with it. I'm sure they will.

      Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahhah!

      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday June 02 2017, @04:58AM

        by Whoever (4524) on Friday June 02 2017, @04:58AM (#519210) Journal

        Let the Californians deal with it. I'm sure they will.

        Aren't you a Californian? What are your plans?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Friday June 02 2017, @04:10AM (9 children)

      by SanityCheck (5190) on Friday June 02 2017, @04:10AM (#519192)

      Wow, now we know Trump made the right play. I'm sure GS had it's filthy fucking hands into whatever shitty scheme the Globalists cooked up to allow US to continue it's current CO2 emission levels, but pay some sort of a fee, of which they would happily cut something off the top. Someone did some quick math and the deal would cost every American worker $7K, not to mention the jobs that would be lost.

      • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Friday June 02 2017, @04:17AM (7 children)

        by SanityCheck (5190) on Friday June 02 2017, @04:17AM (#519196)

        Jesus Christ he is getting torn to shreds by Meme Jihadis and normies alike.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:47AM (6 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:47AM (#519207)

          What does "normies" mean ?

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 02 2017, @05:04AM (5 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday June 02 2017, @05:04AM (#519213) Journal

            It's something edgy edgelords of extreme edginess like this jackoff call people they believe to be insufficiently edgy. The irony is that the kind of person who thinks "normie" is an insult with any weight is, in almost any social/economic/cultural measure you can think of, almost certainly close enough to the mean to stand atop the peak of the distribution.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday June 02 2017, @05:25AM (2 children)

              by cubancigar11 (330) on Friday June 02 2017, @05:25AM (#519222) Homepage Journal

              So do you use this word?

              • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday June 02 2017, @05:43AM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Friday June 02 2017, @05:43AM (#519225) Journal

                "So, whose brain was it"
                "Abby someone, . . . Abby Normal, yeah, that's what it was!"

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 02 2017, @06:07PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday June 02 2017, @06:07PM (#519487) Journal

                Only in one context: when one of said edgelords accuses someone else of being one. My response is typically some variant of "Hate to break this to you, but given you're white, middle class, American, and upholding the status quo, *you* are the "normie," not your target. In case you need this explained to you, supporting the status quo is by definition the least rebellious thing you can do."

                This generally happens when people go "ooooh lookit me, being all politically incorrent! so edgy! so rebellious! Cuck cuck cuck faggot cuck libtard hurr hurr!"

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Friday June 02 2017, @11:51AM (1 child)

              by SanityCheck (5190) on Friday June 02 2017, @11:51AM (#519313)

              It's perfectly fine to be a normie. Some of my best friends are normies.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @07:03PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @07:03PM (#519940)

                Did you just try to "some of my best friends are black" your way out of that?
                Hilarious!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:58AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:58AM (#519211)

        Wow, now we know Trump made the right play. I'm sure GS had it's filthy fucking hands into whatever shitty scheme the Globalists cooked up

        I guess you've never heard of virtue signaling. Because an after-the-fact tweet ain't going to make a difference.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @06:21AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @06:21AM (#519234)

      Carbon trading is obviously loved by traders. It wouldn't just be innocent purchase of credits, with polluters buying from "green tech" makers and countries that save forests.

      First of all, traders get to skim off the top. Pretty much the whole economy would pass through their hands, with them taking a cut.

      Then there is the opportunity for high-frequency trading and bubbles. Recall the problems with gasoline prices that shot up from $2/gal to $4/gal, or from $3/gal to $6/gal in expensive states, and then right back down again a little later. Recall the housing bubble. Recall how Enron caused blackouts in California. Traders don't give a fuck that normal people might use resources for something other than gambling.

      Carbon trading was the ultimate fantasy for that asshole. Of course he's bummed to lose the opportunity to extract money from the entire US economy. He cares not for the environment. He can go fuck himself, then die in a fire.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 02 2017, @01:03PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 02 2017, @01:03PM (#519332) Journal
        I'll note also that carbon markets tend to have hard caps. That is, there is a fixed, not-to-be-changed amount of carbon credits supplied at any given time. The problem is that it causes an abrupt transition from a very elastic market where demand is easily met by the cap to a very inelastic market when demand exceeds the cap. That allows for extremely profitable market cornering. Just buy up a bunch of credits, transitioning the market into the inelastic mode, driving the price up of credits, and then sell your credits for substantial profit. Lather, rinse, repeat.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @01:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @01:42PM (#519339)

        > Then there is the opportunity for high-frequency trading and bubbles.
        > Recall the housing bubble. Recall how Enron caused blackouts in California

        Your post reads like you just threw together a list of every conceivable problem with any kind of market and just assumed that's the way carbon credits work.
        Its pretty weak sauce.

        And what do you propose instead of carbon trading?

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday June 02 2017, @04:11AM (27 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Friday June 02 2017, @04:11AM (#519194)

    Promise made, promise kept. I really could get used to this new sort of politics.

    And, for the record, not tired of the winning yet.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:36AM (#519202)

      Putin keeps on winning.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Friday June 02 2017, @04:41AM (22 children)

      by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- (3868) on Friday June 02 2017, @04:41AM (#519204)

      Promises kept? Where's our awesome gun laws? Why are DACA immigrants not deported? Where's the ban on muslims and a registry? Why is NAFTA still humming along? What happened to branding China a currency manipulator and 45% tariffs? Obama's "weak foreign policy" has been replaced with... nothing. He attacked NATO and now says "NATO is useful". Where's the WALL? Where's our tax cuts? What happened to something "much much better" than ObamaCare (aka MItt RomneyCare)?

      Trump has delivered mostly rhetoric: he promised to gut h1b and yet it's just been bruised with some back door regulatory re-interpretation. Where's his new America first foreign policy? All he's done is run some carriers up the coast of Korea and pursued... sanctions! Wow. How original.

      When he shot missiles at Syria Bannon said don't do it - he campaigned on being a non-interventionist. He listened to his democrat son-in-law instead. Missiles fired.

      He pulled out of the TPP but that was an attempt to strategically align nations against China. Promise kept but now the anti-Chinese coalition has Trump who just cut major trade deals with China, and is relying on China for his foreign policy "win" with NoKo. Promise kept?

      He's delivered on his anti-abortion promises - Supreme Court, various bans, etc. soon to be President Pence and friends are pleased.

      --
      https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @05:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @05:16AM (#519217)

        Not to mention his promise not to cut medicaid [thehill.com] when his budget cuts it by 1.3 trillion dollars. Also all those promises to say "radical islamic terrorism" but instead he goes to Saudi, and is too chicken to say "radical islamic terrorism" to their face instead he gives them a discount [cnbc.com] on an arms deal that includes weapons that not even Obama would sell to them. [cnbc.com] Not only did he fail to negotiate a good deal for America, he folded like a paper bag.

        And then there is his wholesale adoption of the politics of vulgar realism where he says american values no longer matter when it comes to foreign policy. WTF? So much for putting America first. All it takes get him to sell out Amerca is for some tin-pot dictator to say nice things about him and he rolls over like a dog that wants his belly scratched.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by jmorris on Friday June 02 2017, @05:16AM (14 children)

        by jmorris (4844) on Friday June 02 2017, @05:16AM (#519218)

        Promises kept?

        Patience grasshopper. So far when Trump checks off a promise it has been the real deal. And yes, we must make sure he knows we are still watching.

        Where's our awesome gun laws?

        Other than a full national reciprocal carry, we don't actually need many new laws. And look at gun sales, they have plummeted so nobody is worried about any backsliding into gungrabbing New York thought patterns. NRA was one his first major endorsements, he ain't fool enough to think he can double cross those guys. They are THE single issue interest group.

        Why are DACA immigrants not deported?

        Things on the border are getting sorted out. Jeff Sessions is getting his grip on the machinery and I certainly trust him to do what is required. And again, -they- believe, the numbers are way down and reports of "self deportation" are starting to appear.

        Where's the ban on muslims and a registry?

        Some of that was bargaining position walked back even before the election. And the rest is held up in the courts for now. Soon. Although I'm starting to think the only way to unconstipate the courts is going to be giving most of the 9th Circus helicopter rides....

        Why is NAFTA still humming along?

        Grade there is still incomplete / not started yet. But he does remind people that he hasn't forgot. Note that he already has both Canada and Mexico on record agreeing in principle to renegotiate. Who would have thought that would happen without lots of shouting.

        What happened to branding China a currency manipulator and 45% tariffs?

        He is waiting to see if China will play ball. If they deal with the Nork problem it is probably worth trading a pass on the currency thing for. Because if China can't solve it there are no other peaceful options left after Clinton, Bush and Obama punted. And that should frighten any sane person. War in Korea will be a nightmare, second in horror only to Norks with fully weaponized Nukes.

        Obama's "weak foreign policy" has been replaced with... nothing.

        Oh I dunno, looks like the world got the memo you missed. They are pissed, they are bitching and moaning, but they are respecting our authoritah like they haven't in eight years.

        He attacked NATO and now says "NATO is useful".

        You left out the part where NATO agreed to cure Trumps major objections. They are willing to work on the terror problem and have agreed to step up to their obligations instead of letting Uncle Sap pay for everything.

        Where's the WALL?

        Bids for test sections have been let and work commencing. Grade: In Progress.

        Where's our tax cuts? What happened to something "much much better" than ObamaCare (aka MItt RomneyCare)?

        These two are beyond Trump's individual powers. Now we have to pressure the feckless weasels in the Republican Caucus to fulfil their promises. Promises they never, ever, intended to keep btw. But they probably will. Now. Because of Trump and fear of his voters.

        And btw, for all the bluster from certain European capitals tonight, there will of course be negotiations. They won't reopen the Paris talks of course but there will be future negotiations. Remember Trump's mantra is we had been making BAD deals and he is right. Obama especially enjoyed making the worst deal possible because he hates us.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @05:22AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @05:22AM (#519220)

          Your desperate struggle and failure to refute anything in that post is pretty funny.
          Its so obvious how deeply committed you are to the emperror with no clothes.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @06:54AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @06:54AM (#519246)

            And your inability to refute any of his points immediately discredits your inane response.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @02:23PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @02:23PM (#519363)

              You can't respond to opinionated rhetoric, there are no facts to debate. Jmorris has nothing besides blind hope that Trump is a 72D chess master. It is laughable that anyone believes in the con man president.

              I hope he gets impeached just so idiots like yourself have no more recourse and either get with reality or snap so we can lock you in a padded cell.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @06:30AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @06:30AM (#519236)

          We need to flip the law around for gun mufflers. Guns made after 2018 should be sold only with mufflers capable of a minimum of 45 dB noise reduction. The gun mufflers themselves should be fully unrestricted items, available for anybody to purchase without ID in any state.

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 02 2017, @07:48AM (2 children)

            by jmorris (4844) on Friday June 02 2017, @07:48AM (#519264)

            Ok, good one. But didn't we already open up silencer sales? I'm seeing ads for em on TV, never used to. Of course I never really saw firearm ads at all on TV so maybe that is just on TheBlaze. It comes outta Texas, it really is a whole other country.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @08:31AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @08:31AM (#519272)

              It's like pot. Federal law says no, but states have passed laws that purport to legalize it. Federal enforcement is spotty.

              This is a horrible situation. It undermines the rule of law via selective enforcement. The last time we let this get out of hand, we even got a civil war.

              We're going down a very bad path if we can't or won't uniformly enforce the law as written. We need to enforce federal law, even if we don't happen to like the law, while working to change the laws we hate.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday June 02 2017, @03:12PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 02 2017, @03:12PM (#519394) Journal

                We need to enforce federal law, even if we don't happen to like the law, while working to change the laws we hate.

                Even when the law is illegal? Not seeing it.

          • (Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Friday June 02 2017, @02:50PM (1 child)

            by SpockLogic (2762) on Friday June 02 2017, @02:50PM (#519379)

            Guns made after 2018 should be sold only with mufflers capable of a minimum of 45 dB noise reduction.

            It is vitally important that we protect the hearing of gun owners and every one around them. Make fixed suppressors mandatory and removal a capital offense. Make 45 dB the maximum allowable sound and no firearm can be sold that exceeds this limit. Seems more than reasonable, can't be too careful you know.

            Should I add "Think of the children", yes, that should do it.

            --
            Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @01:31AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @01:31AM (#520051)

              If somebody's firing somewhere that bystanders aren't using hearing protection, you've probably got a bigger problem. Of course that would require addressing the socioeconomic factors that lead to people shooting up places, which Republicans have no interest in even trying to fix. Republicans seem to be, at the moment, the party of trying their damnedest to make everything worse. I think the Libertarians have a pretty good idea how to improve those socioeconomic factors, but the Greens are probably more comprehensive in this area. All the D team does is make some of the right noises from time to time and not a lot else.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @02:30PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @02:30PM (#519369)

          Every time I try to read someone's opinion that I disagree with on this site, they say dumb things like this -

          Although I'm starting to think the only way to unconstipate the courts is going to be giving most of the 9th Circus helicopter rides....

          I bet youre the first a-hole shouting about Kathy Griffin.

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 02 2017, @06:14PM (1 child)

            by jmorris (4844) on Friday June 02 2017, @06:14PM (#519490)

            Actually, I wouldn't be offended by it at all, giving a D-List nobody a week of coverage was as dumb as what the attention whore did, i.e. we fed the troll. But I now totally support destroying her career over it because I am a believer in Alinsky's Rules. Especially the one that says "Make the Enemy live by his own book of rules." As someone on the Right I don't get to make the rules, but we are discovering we can demand they be equally enforced and should do so. A left celebutard like her would be the first into a twitter rage mob pile on for some random schlub in Iowa who won't make a gay wedding cake, forwarded the wrong email joke, a rodeo clown wearing an Obama mask, or some other retarded invented offense so she should not be permitted to object as the ragemob pressures venues to cancel her tour.

            Only by pain will the Left be motivated to change the rules so people's lives aren't destroyed by offending somebody. Appealing to their better nature, reason etc. won't work because the left lacks those properties. But aversion to pain is universal so we must make it hurt.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:23PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:23PM (#519824)

              Actually, I wouldn't be offended
              ...
              I now totally support destroying her career

              Its pretty funny how you try to have your cake and eat it too.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 02 2017, @06:46PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday June 02 2017, @06:46PM (#519502) Journal

            J-Mo is a full-on fascist. He's not joking or trolling; he really believes things like this.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:19AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:19AM (#519712)

          > So far when Trump checks off a promise it has been the real deal.

          Right (sneering) -- like the big White House party after the House passed their health care bill. Which means nothing since the Senate is hard at work on a completely different bill.

          Trump declares a win and then moves on to the next smoke screen, in hopes that you don't notice that the first "win" was really a big loss. He's done this most of his life and is really good at staying half a step in front of everyone. You have to peer through the smoke to see what is actually happening--which is really very simple: he and his family are robbing us all blind.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by linkdude64 on Friday June 02 2017, @03:25PM (5 children)

        by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday June 02 2017, @03:25PM (#519401)

        I'd like to go down your list, if I may.

        "Where's our awesome gun laws?"

        Pro-Freedom rulings are forthcoming. A Pro-America and Pro-Constitution Judge has been appointed to the Supreme Court for the first time in a long time. The President doesn't make the rules.

        "Why are DACA immigrants not deported?"

        I can give you a few examples who have been, and each one is a victory, because it dissuades dozens more criminals from coming in: Yes, all DACA recipients are criminals for illegally entering the country.

        "Where's the ban on muslims and a registry?"

        He created one, and it was destroyed by an Anti-Constitution and Anti-American establishment that was set up by the previous administration. Should a bridge builder be charged with "Not building a bridge" when a Suicide-Bomber of Peace blows it up? I should think not.

        "Why is NAFTA still humming along?"

        It is creaking along, sweating, and "literally shaking." Mexico is already reacting to the re-negotiation announcements, and tensions amongst our countries are at a high since wartime, which is another victory in itself.

        "What happened to branding China a currency manipulator and 45% tariffs?"

        This was bargained for. China is now buying coal from the US now, amidst other changes.

        "Obama's "weak foreign policy" has been replaced with... nothing."

        Bombings, increased military spending, the increasing militarization of Japan, the cooperation with Russia in the middle east, NATO members finally getting serious about paying their dues...

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:11PM (#519420)

          "Where's our awesome gun laws?"

          Pro-Freedom rulings are forthcoming. A Pro-America and Pro-Constitution Judge has been appointed to the Supreme Court for the first time in a long time. The President doesn't make the rules.

          Ummm, yeah. About that, you might want to hold off on your victory lap until you see how Justice Gorsuch actually performs in his duties. He may very well end up being another Justice Souter. [wikipedia.org] But we'll see soon enough.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Friday June 02 2017, @05:14PM (3 children)

          by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- (3868) on Friday June 02 2017, @05:14PM (#519449)

          'd like to go down your list, if I may.

          "Where's our awesome gun laws?"

          >>Pro-Freedom rulings are forthcoming. A Pro-America and Pro-Constitution Judge has been appointed to the Supreme Court for the first time in a long time. The President doesn't make the rules.

          What happed to "winning so much we're tired of winning"? Or is it now "Winning when the President makes the rules, which is rarely, and when other people let him when, which is not so much"?

          "Why are DACA immigrants not deported?"

          >>I can give you a few examples who have been, and each one is a victory, because it dissuades dozens more criminals from coming in: Yes, all DACA recipients are criminals for illegally entering the country.

          Technically speaking all DACA ("dreamers") are illegals, so singling out one or two bad apples is hardly "living up to his promises". He vowed to deport close to 100% of all illegal aliens of which the DACA immigrants were a symbolic target. He didn't do it. What happened to winning? Or is it - "winning only one at a time with a few bad apples"?

          "Where's the ban on muslims and a registry?"

          >>He created one, and it was destroyed by an Anti-Constitution and Anti-American establishment that was set up by the previous administration. Should a bridge builder be charged with "Not building a bridge" when a Suicide-Bomber of Peace blows it up? I should think not.

          What happened to winning? Or it is "Winning when the darn Constitution abiding deep state let's us win"?

          "Why is NAFTA still humming along?"

          >>It is creaking along, sweating, and "literally shaking." Mexico is already reacting to the re-negotiation announcements, and tensions amongst our countries are at a high since wartime, which is another victory in itself.

          What happened to winning? Trump didn't say he'd have a "tension around winning that might indicate winning at some future date". NAFTA and the drugs pouring over our border are still in play. Where's the winning?

          "What happened to branding China a currency manipulator and 45% tariffs?"

          >> This was bargained for. China is now buying coal from the US now, amidst other changes.

          That's not what he promised. Where are the winning tariffs so we're not being flooded by cheap Chinese goods? This doesn't sound like winning to me. He pulled out of TPP and now Paris, but NAFTA is still chugging along.

          "Obama's "weak foreign policy" has been replaced with... nothing."

          >>Bombings, increased military spending, the increasing militarization of Japan, the cooperation with Russia in the middle east, NATO members finally getting serious about paying their dues...

          Sorry to break this to you but bombing isn't a foreign policy, increased military spending isn't a foreign policy, the militarization of Japan has been happening some time and Trump has had little to do with it, at least some of the bombing you've mentioned actually hurt our cooperation with Russia, and NATO members have been paying dues - although Trump said it was irrelevant and now flip-flopped and said it's OK (after he decided to ignore his earlier anti-interventionist positions and become a democrat-hawk under the guidance of his son in law Kushner). I don't see any "Winning" here. This is just Obama era status quo++.

          We're not winning, and Trump isn't winning, and we're not even close to getting sick of winning because - well - it's not happening. That is, unless someone let's it happen and apparently it's not under Trumps control.

          --
          https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
          • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday June 02 2017, @10:52PM (2 children)

            by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday June 02 2017, @10:52PM (#519611)

            "What happed to "winning so much we're tired of winning"? Or is it now "Winning when the President makes the rules, which is rarely, and when other people let him when, which is not so much"?"

            This is not an argument.

            "He vowed to deport close to 100% of all illegal aliens of which the DACA immigrants were a symbolic target. He didn't do it. "

            This is an argument. He changed his mind - to me, personally - for the better. Yours is the fanatic's mindset in action: Trump changes his mind in a positive way, he's a weakling. Trump doubles down on his promise to leave the Paris Accord, he's bull-headed and shouldn't be President. Please realize that you have obvious double-standards.

            "What happened to winning? Or it is "Winning when the darn Constitution abiding deep state let's us win"?"

            This is not an argument. The Consitution explicitly grants the President rights to deny ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE OR PEOPLES FOR ANY REASON. A ban against countries is not a ban against individual citizens on any basis, Trump's words as a candidate are not equal to Trump's as the President, in terms of the legally drafted Executive Order, which was - as you surely know - based on the exact list of country's the Obama administration had listed as terrorist hot spots.

            "Where are the winning tariffs so we're not being flooded by cheap Chinese goods? "

            The resurgence in US manufacturing and sense of nationalism Trump is inspiring will replace the sales gradually.

            You are expressing yourself like a child. I, nor any republican I have ever seen, read from, or spoken to EVER stamped their feet and said, "Well Obama, it's month 3! Where's the perfect EVERYTHING that you promised us?" I am almost dumbstruck at how high your expectations of Trump are - they are even higher than the standards I am sure you would have had for Hillary or had for Obama as far as their campaign promises go. Is it perhaps a Freudian-slip admission that you recognize him as far more competent, accomplished, and capable an individual than any candidate or President in recent history, having expected him to entirely reform the massively intrenched MIC, Congressional and lobbyist establishments, and "deep state" within 3 months time? In truth, the fact that one person was able to shake the foundations of said establishment (just look at how embarassingly the DNC is stumbling over their own feet - failure after failure - the people whom you would have rather seen in power) is incredible in itself. Single-handedly un-seating one of the most monied and powerful institutions in the world "on time and under-budget."

            You don't have to give credit where it's due, but that says more about you than it does about anyone else.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:19PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:19PM (#519823)

              So, in other words, it doesn't matter what Don the Con actually does -- as long as he makes liberals cry, he's doing his job.

            • (Score: 2) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Sunday June 04 2017, @01:07AM

              by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- (3868) on Sunday June 04 2017, @01:07AM (#520041)

              You mean to actually *expect* that Donald Trump will deliver on his promises for the first 100 days ( a timeline he set btw not me) is wholly unrealistic and shows my childlike naivete?

              And I quote:"What follows is my 100 day action plan to make America great again..."

              https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf [donaldjtrump.com]

              So does this childishness also extend to everyone who voted for him? Or is it just me?

              To sum up: he hasn't delivered. It's been a hundred days. Am I missing something?

              --
              https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:43AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:43AM (#519206)

      Promise made, promise kept

      One out of how many so far?

      Remember to keep his feet to the fire or there'll be no incentive to keep promises. Winning is an end result that is by no means guaranteed until the end of the game.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 02 2017, @03:11PM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 02 2017, @03:11PM (#519393) Journal

        One out of how many so far?

        Are we going to do some sort of accurate accounting here with a comparison to previous presidents (particularly Obama, who got a huge pass on his promises)? Or are we going to keep saying "But what else have the Romans done for us?" It seems pretty disingenuous to be complaining about promises not kept when Trump is only about a tenth of the way through his term and we're not considering what level of promises broken has been accepted in the past.

        Remember to keep his feet to the fire or there'll be no incentive to keep promises. Winning is an end result that is by no means guaranteed until the end of the game.

        Always good advice, but we don't give presidents magic wands with which to fulfill promises. Promises can be broken simply because the president, no matter how hard they try, simply doesn't have the power or political backing to do it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @07:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @07:12PM (#519514)

          accounting here with a comparison to previous presidents

          Feel free to grade on a curve, if that makes you feel better. It may be unrealistic to expect a president to do substantially better than his peers, but I don't believe that low expectations inspire the best performance.

          The accountability of a politician's promises will be mainly determined by the consequences of not keeping them. If someone makes unrealistic promises, then they should also be held accountable for that as well.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by richtopia on Friday June 02 2017, @04:32AM (21 children)

    by richtopia (3160) on Friday June 02 2017, @04:32AM (#519201) Homepage Journal

    Trump's policies are giving China an opportunity to step forward and lead the world into the new century. If isolationism is the correct choice in the next twenty years is to be seen: isolationism should help with keeping USA jobs stateside, but if the rest of the wold leaves the USA behind the repercussions could be disastrous, even if everyone is employed. I predict that after the Paris accords, we will see the China Investment Bank become a major player and start displacing the World Bank.

    http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/china-paris-climate-accord/ [instituteforenergyresearch.org]

    Disclaimer: I have been drinking and completely ignored the "ignore political bickering" that martyb so politely supplied in the original post.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by richtopia on Friday June 02 2017, @04:48AM (3 children)

      by richtopia (3160) on Friday June 02 2017, @04:48AM (#519208) Homepage Journal

      To follow up on drinking: I did zero research on my post contrary to my normal expectations. I was thinking of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, but that is completely irrelevant to today's discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Infrastructure_Investment_Bank [wikipedia.org]

      At the end of the day the Paris Agreement is lose lose for the USA:
      1. Stay in the agreement and suffer the economic growth consequences - I would say this is paying the Devil's due for the last century of oil exploitation, but it is painful to move away from fossil fuels
      2. Leave the agreement and reap the rewards. While the Accords are relatively sparse in ramifications for leavers, I suspect the international community will use this as a spring board to distance themselves from the USA, particularly with the negative feelings towards the current president

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Friday June 02 2017, @05:27AM (1 child)

        by tftp (806) on Friday June 02 2017, @05:27AM (#519223) Homepage

        I suspect the international community will use this as a spring board to distance themselves from the USA, particularly with the negative feelings towards the current president

        I can't imagine anyone of significance on this Earth who would be terribly concerned that some countries are and other are not a part of this Paris Agreement.

        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @01:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @01:46PM (#519341)

          Wait, your failure of imagination is now a meaningful indicator of international politics?
          That may be the most narcisstic post I've seen here and we've got idiots like runaway, frojack and the mighty butthurt who are archons of dunning-krueger

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 02 2017, @03:14PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 02 2017, @03:14PM (#519396) Journal

        I suspect the international community will use this as a spring board to distance themselves from the USA, particularly with the negative feelings towards the current president

        Sounds interesting and not necessarily bad.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Friday June 02 2017, @05:06AM (13 children)

      by Whoever (4524) on Friday June 02 2017, @05:06AM (#519214) Journal

      Isolationism has never benefited any country in the long term.

      Pulling out was a stupid move. The "accord" was voluntary, not US law and mostly symbolic. So remaining in has zero consequences. Pulling out shows that the current administration isn't interested in the future, isn't interested in working with other countries.

      If the USA continues on this course, it's likely that China will take the lead and the USA will become a backwater. Once all the other countries have transitioned to renewable energy, power will be even more expensive in the USA and hence businesses will be even less competitive.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @05:20AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @05:20AM (#519219)

        Pulling out shows that the current administration isn't interested in the future, isn't interested in working with other countries.

        Bingo! It isn't so much about the CO2, its about the loss of American prestige. Trump only understand guns, he has no concept of soft power. But soft power is what kept the US top dog since WWII. He's pissing it all away just to make a bunch of glorified peckerwoods feel good about themselves.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 02 2017, @11:06AM (1 child)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday June 02 2017, @11:06AM (#519301) Journal

        I think that's a pretty big stretch. China couldn't care less about the rest of the world, except as tributary states. It's in their very name, zhongguo ("Middle Country" aka "Country at the Center of the Earth"). Africans, who have been seeing a lot of investment from China, are quickly learning that the Chinese give even less of a shit about the Africans they're extracting the resources from than the POS Americans and Europeans did.

        I surmise we're moving back to a multi-polar world with spheres of influence. Germany's in a really good spot right now, if they can successfully herd the cats. China has had a good couple of decades because Japan and South Korea haven't contended with it directly as they have in the past, but both those places could wake up to the new reality and do so again.

        There's also a non-zero chance that D) could happen and shifting energy and manufacturing economies could reorder the geopolitical realities entirely. We are on the cusp of a global revolution in those respects.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @01:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @01:50PM (#519345)

          You have a definition of "care" that aligns very closely with Don the Con's definition.
          The more you post, the more I realize you are just a trumpanzee in liberal clothing.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday June 02 2017, @03:17PM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 02 2017, @03:17PM (#519399) Journal

        The "accord" was voluntary, not US law and mostly symbolic. So remaining in has zero consequences. Pulling out shows that the current administration isn't interested in the future, isn't interested in working with other countries.

        Not seeing the problem. The Paris Accord wasn't a good future. It prioritized first world hysteria over six billion peoples' lives.

        • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday June 02 2017, @11:22PM (3 children)

          by Whoever (4524) on Friday June 02 2017, @11:22PM (#519627) Journal

          Yeah, I mean, much of the world becoming uninhabitable, including prime real estate along the US coastlines is nothing to worry about, is it?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:20AM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:20AM (#519713) Journal

            Yeah, I mean, much of the world becoming uninhabitable, including prime real estate along the US coastlines is nothing to worry about, is it?

            It has to happen first. Getting bombarded into the Stone Age by Nazi-launched Moon cheese would also be a bad thing, but I don't see us radically altering our societies for it. At some point, you also have to evaluate the likelihood of the proposed bad thing happens rather than merely how bad it is. I'll note that nobody has presented evidence that would support your concern. That's what makes it hysteria.

            • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by Whoever on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:33AM (1 child)

              by Whoever (4524) on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:33AM (#519719) Journal

              I'll note that nobody has presented evidence that would support your concern.

              Despite all the information that is available that supports the notion of climate change and its likely effects and you still want a personal link in support? You are a special kind of flower aren't you?

              There is no point posting anything because you will still discount it. You, like many Trumpanzees, are resistant to facts.

              • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Saturday June 03 2017, @04:20AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 03 2017, @04:20AM (#519728) Journal

                Despite all the information that is available that supports the notion of climate change and its likely effects and you still want a personal link in support?

                I've perused this information before. It doesn't say what you claim it says. This is the core of hysteria - imaginary dangers.

                There is no point posting anything because you will still discount it.

                You should discount it as well.

                You, like many Trumpanzees, are resistant to facts.

                I think rather you are the Trumpanzee. There really isn't much difference intellectually or politically between the world ending because sea level goes up 10 inches, and illegals takin' our jerbs away because someone can't be bothered to look for work. Too bad you didn't vote for Trump. You could have gotten him to pay lip service to your delusions instead.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Friday June 02 2017, @04:45PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 02 2017, @04:45PM (#519430)

        the "accord" was voluntary, not US law and mostly symbolic. So remaining in has zero consequences. Pulling out shows that the current administration isn't interested in the future, isn't interested in working with other countries.

        So its useless and pointless so we gotta keep drinking the kool aid.

        The Paris Accords are the environmental equivalent of a Paris Hilton reality show in so many ways

      • (Score: 2) by leftover on Friday June 02 2017, @08:02PM (3 children)

        by leftover (2448) on Friday June 02 2017, @08:02PM (#519551)

        For the US there is the bit about providing $100B per year. That is not mere symbolism.
        The Paris 'agreement' was made by a majority of countries with their hands out and Soros behind the curtain.

        --
        Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
        • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday June 02 2017, @11:20PM (2 children)

          by Whoever (4524) on Friday June 02 2017, @11:20PM (#519622) Journal

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/02/fact-checking-trump-speech-paris-climate-agreement/102399674/ [usatoday.com]

          The U.S. has pledged $3 billion, but so far has paid $500 million.

          http://www.factcheck.org/2017/05/trump-paris-agreement/ [factcheck.org]

          Perhaps you have been lied to through your news sources.

          • (Score: 2) by leftover on Saturday June 03 2017, @07:36AM (1 child)

            by leftover (2448) on Saturday June 03 2017, @07:36AM (#519767)

            $100B is the amount specified in the 'Paris Agreement', to which the US has not agreed.

            --
            Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:33PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:33PM (#519826)

              Do you think your word play is actually informative?
              Its $100B split between all developed countries, not just the US.
              Nor it was not an enforceable requirement.

              And its payment for them not to build dirty power plants that dump pollution in our air.
              We built dirty power plants that polluted their air as we modernized, its their right to do the same to us as they modernize.
              Which would you rather have, their pollution or a little more money in the bank accounts of the rich?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @07:14AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @07:14AM (#519251)

      China would experience what the US has taken since WW2 to learn: being at the top and controlling the world is expensive and earns the hate.

      Let's see China get deeply involved in Asia and Africa. Xinjiang will become the way in for the terrorists.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @08:50AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @08:50AM (#519277)

        Except China doesn't give a rats ass about "internal politics" of other nations. China only cares about China.

        Let's see China get deeply involved in Asia and Africa.

        They already are. It's US that's on the way out, and rather quickly these days. Killing TPP and now withdrawing from Paris Accords is one giant gift to China in both cases. But yes, requires 2 brain cells to connect those dots.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:29AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:29AM (#519717)

          > Except China doesn't give a rats ass about "internal politics" of other nations. China only cares about China.

          Huh? Where have you been lately. Chinese state-sponsored crackers/hackers seem to be active in the politics of nations all around the world.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:39AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @04:39AM (#519203)

    Hilton?

    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday June 02 2017, @06:08AM (1 child)

      by krishnoid (1156) on Friday June 02 2017, @06:08AM (#519231)

      Umm ... that's hot?

      Well, anti-climatic, anyway.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @07:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @07:09PM (#519946)

        > Umm ... that's hot?

        You must watch the weirdest porn: Fat, saggy old men with micropenises banging models while their balls bounce off the floor.

    • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday June 02 2017, @09:55AM

      by Rivenaleem (3400) on Friday June 02 2017, @09:55AM (#519290)

      Was this before or after he grabbed her by the pussy?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday June 02 2017, @06:14AM (1 child)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Friday June 02 2017, @06:14AM (#519232) Homepage Journal

    You have to love the press: the careful analysis, the considered opinion [blogspot.com]:

    • "Flooding from NYC to Shanghai"
    • "Mass extinction in the natural world"
    • "Etc."

    Who know that Trump held such power? Who knew that the Paris Accords, with their unenforceable "pledges" were the solution to such problems?

    Seriously, whatever one thinks of Trump's decision, the MSM reaction is just laughable.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:29AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:29AM (#519718) Journal

      Seriously, whatever one thinks of Trump's decision, the MSM reaction is just laughable.

      There's huge cognitive dissonance going on with the MSM concerning Trump, like when they fact-checked [dilbert.com] Trump's quip that Obama and Clinton founded ISIS.

  • (Score: 2) by quietus on Friday June 02 2017, @09:09AM (9 children)

    by quietus (6328) on Friday June 02 2017, @09:09AM (#519280) Journal

    Watching the speech live -- including the bizarro god-what-a-great-president-you-are by Pruitt afterwards -- my main takeaway was this:

    ... the rest of the world laughs with the United States. They only applauded the Paris Agreement because it would harm the US economy. It is all a big conspiracy to damage us. They are our enemies.

    • (Score: 2) by quietus on Friday June 02 2017, @09:32AM

      by quietus (6328) on Friday June 02 2017, @09:32AM (#519284) Journal

      The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance. You see what's happening. It's pretty obvious to those that want to keep an open mind.

      At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us as a country? We want fair treatment for its citizens, and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers. We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won't be. They won't be.

      (from the speech transcript)

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by gidds on Friday June 02 2017, @12:30PM (4 children)

      by gidds (589) on Friday June 02 2017, @12:30PM (#519324)

      As a citizen of ‘the rest of the world’, I have not been laughing at the USA over this, nor am I now.  Of course, I laugh at your President for many other things — but on this issue I mourn for your country, and for the effect its short-sightedness and self-obsession have on the planet we all share.

      I think the new French President Emmanuel Macron put it best when he said, “wherever we live, whoever we are, we all share the same responsibility.  Make our planet great again.”

      Though, from what I read, the effects of this decision may be rather more limited than we fear.  Even discounting the backlash already building against it from within the USA, we've reached the point where simple economic pressures will continue to move the USA and every other nation towards renewable sources.  In the long term, fighting that tide will hurt the USA more than anyone else.

      --
      [sig redacted]
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 02 2017, @02:10PM (3 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday June 02 2017, @02:10PM (#519354) Journal

        Even discounting the backlash already building against it from within the USA, we've reached the point where simple economic pressures will continue to move the USA and every other nation towards renewable sources. In the long term, fighting that tide will hurt the USA more than anyone else.

        I'm with you on this. I'm generally of the mind that the status quo in American government is fatally flawed. This decision reflects how completely the keepers of the status quo have captured the American federal government. They will not and cannot adapt to our new global realities. The momentum in America toward renewable energy and sustainability, though, has built too much and gone too far to be turned back now. It's ineluctable. That's cause for optimism.

        The only effect I see this policy resistance at the federal level having is to guarantee there will be no soft landing for the status quo. It will be abrupt, a state change. All the wealth and income will shift to new players, some of whom we already know but most we don't yet, and old calcified industries will go bankrupt and their employees in Congress will be swept away.

        Will America itself persist as the world's sole superpower through and after that transition? In the short run it still has the world's most powerful military by far, and it still holds the reins for many of the world's financial and other systems. If the country dithered for a long time all of that would slip away, but if it can right its political ship in 10 years everybody might forgive it its nervous breakdown and decide they still prefer America to China or Germany.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @02:15PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @02:15PM (#519357)

          The only effect I see this policy resistance at the federal level having is to guarantee there will be no soft landing for the status quo. It will be abrupt, a state change. All the wealth and income will shift to new players, some of whom we already know but most we don't yet, and old calcified industries will go bankrupt and their employees in Congress will be swept away.

          Not a single care for all the regular people caught up in your nihilist fantasy. God you are a total shit bag.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @02:31PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @02:31PM (#519370)

            Whatever little snowflake. Obviously people would get new jobs in the new industries, but let's worry about your feelings first!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @07:01PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @07:01PM (#519939)

              > Obviously people would get new jobs in the new industries, but let's worry about your feelings first!

              What do my feelings have to do with 40 year olds trying and failing to switch careers while they have car payments, mortgages and their kid's tuition to pay?
              Living your mom's basement without any responsibilities you are utterly clueless what it is like for regular people when industries are completely uprooted.

              And despite your aggressive ignorance, you are still a better person than P666 - because he does know that people will suffer and he does not give one thin damn about them. All he cares about is turning billionaires into hundred-millionaires and vice versa. His meet the new boss, same as the old boss goals for america are deliberately cruel to the people who are caught in the cross-fire.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @01:54PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @01:54PM (#519347)

      He's always talking like that. Its the language of someone with a persecution complex who is deeply insecure.
      Its like he's projected his own internal self-image of a pathetic weakling on the country as a whole.
      I'm kind of sick of it. I used to think the "american exceptionalism" was hubristic, but damn he's replaced it with "american patheticism."

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 02 2017, @02:23PM (1 child)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday June 02 2017, @02:23PM (#519362) Journal

        His brand of brittle hubris characterizes much of his class. When a person owes his wealth and position to the old boy network rather than the strength of his own right arm, bluster comprises the totality of his persona. Any challenge to his constructed facade invokes reactions like Trump's. A few of them work hard to justify to themselves the wealth and position they already have, but most spend most of their time and energy to maintaining their place in the old boy network that cares for and feeds them. The rest of us are aphids to be farmed.

        A handful of genuine, self-made unicorns who achieve economic wealth and influence, are regarded as demi-gods; they quickly attract coteries of hangers-on who hope to be considered less worthless by association. If the unicorns spurn those too coarsely, though, the old-boy network turns on them quickly and tries hard to destroy them.

        That was the dynamic at work in Martha Stewart's case. She built her empire of home fashion, but she was nasty to the old boy network. Too many slights at too many cocktail parties. So they used the insider trading affair to take her down, even though that sort of things is universally done among the old boy network.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @06:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @06:54PM (#519938)

          His brand of brittle hubris characterizes much of his class. When a person owes his wealth and position to the old boy network rather than the strength of his own right arm, bluster comprises the totality of his persona.

          Not even close. His brittle hubris isn't due to the silver spoon in his ass. There are plenty of old money people who aren't like that. You just don't hear from them because they aren't so insecure to they have to bluster. I've met plenty of similar assholes who aren't rich and plenty of rich people who weren't pathetic losers as people. His paranoid insecurity is a character defect that money amplifies. Maybe it is genetic or maybe his dickhole of a father and smothering mother made him that way, but money did not cause it.

          As for martha stewart, lolwut? She lost a fight with other billionaires. That wasn't about her being mouthy. It was just another power struggle between titans.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by butthurt on Friday June 02 2017, @01:44PM

    by butthurt (6141) on Friday June 02 2017, @01:44PM (#519340) Journal

    "Trump's Paris Agreement Decision Takes Effect One Day After the 2020 Election"

    http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-paris-agreement-decision-takes-effect-one-day-after-2020-election-619326 [newsweek.com]

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @02:13PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @02:13PM (#519355)

    It is well known that this move is the handiwork of the actual president, Steve Bannon.
    What many people don't know is that Steve Bannon was previously in charge of the Biosphere 2 project [wikipedia.org] - a fully self-contained ecosystem in a 3-acre dome with people and everything.
    And guess what? He totally killed it. I mean mismanaged it so badly that scientists broke in because bannon was keeping the people inside ignorant of ongoing safety problems.
    Scientists that the courts ultimately ordered him to pay $600K to for harassment.

    Eventually the entire experiment was abandoned and the government picked up the pieces and gave it to the university of Arizona.

    So, he's clearly got a great track record managing environmental issues.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 02 2017, @02:26PM (1 child)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday June 02 2017, @02:26PM (#519366) Journal

      Is Steve Bannon the president? If he is, why hasn't he drained the swamp? Where are the Wall Street bankers and DC insiders being perp-walked into jail?

      He may have influenced Trump to do this particular thing, but that's different from asserting he's in charge.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:14PM (#519820)

        Dude, steve bannon is a wall street banker. He is a Goldman Sachs alum and made all his money as an investment banker.
        Wrecking the TPA fits perfectly with bannon's illiterate goal of the "deconstruction of the administrative state."
        And "drain the swamp" had absolutely nothing to do with bankers or DC insiders, it was always about long-term civil servants aka the deep state.
        The fact that you thought otherwise is just another example of how politicians play their voters by making vague statements and letting their sycophants fill in the blanks with their own desires.
        You got played.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 02 2017, @02:35PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday June 02 2017, @02:35PM (#519373) Journal

    Trump said it was a "bad deal for America," and he claimed maybe the U.S. can get a better one.

    I'm really confused by all of this, since people who actually negotiated the Paris Agreement say the U.S. can basically modify its own goals/commitments. There is some language that encourages changes that make emissions commitments more strict, but again -- people who wrote and negotiated the thing point out that drafts included specific language to restrict or limit "backsliding" in a country's self-determined goals, but that language was rejected for the final version.

    So, what did the U.S. really commit to here? Mostly monitoring and reporting. The agreement seems mostly about getting as many countries as possible "at the table" for discussing climate issues, with each country determining its own voluntary contribution to mitigation efforts. I'm sure there were be international backlash if the U.S. said it would be lowering its goals, but how exactly is it better to leave the agreement completely?

    What does Trump mean by a "better deal"? The U.S. gets to determine its own terms for lowering emissions AND it gets a pony for Christmas?

  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday June 02 2017, @03:19PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday June 02 2017, @03:19PM (#519400) Homepage

    It's Official - President Trump Pulls Out

    I think that's what he says when he climaxes.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 02 2017, @05:53PM (1 child)

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday June 02 2017, @05:53PM (#519473)

    "Trump is the embodiment of the way the World has perceived the USA for a long time."
    or maybe
    "Trump cleaned the mirror so the US can see its true self, past the rosy propaganda"

    Any objective suggestions?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:17PM (#519822)

      Trump is the embodiment of the way America's enemies have perceived the USA for a long time.

      Trump is the refinement of all the things wrong with America and none of the things right with America.

(1)