SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 4, Informative) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Thursday June 01 2017, @04:52AM (11 children)
he'll do. Unless he changes his mind. Or else Jared et al tell him to do otherwise. Or...
It might be more cogent to follow Trumps actual actions rather than his verbal pronouncements about his intentions of his imminent actions.
Trump is also a notorious news manipulator, and this may be yet another attempt to shift the headlines away from his Russian follies and towards his so-called "agenda".
https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Thursday June 01 2017, @07:05AM (10 children)
Trump's Russian follies?
There has been so much written about this, but...so strange...no actual evidence of any wrongdoing at all.
Seriously: what major candidates aren't in contact with other countries in the months before the election? This is entirely normal. [cnn.com] The candidates also all receive security briefings from the intelligence services. Why? Because the time between the November election and assuming office in January is far too short to take up the reigns of power.
There was an article in the Swiss news today: "80% of the media coverage on Trump is negative", as if that were some sort of indictment of Trump. Personally, I take that the other way, as an indictment of the media. The media decides what stories it's going to write, and they take every opportunity to say "We, the media, don't like Trump." If I see this here, in Switzerland, I can only imagine it's 10x worse in the US.
One of Trump's election promises was to withdraw from the Paris agreement. If you actually look at the details of the Paris agreement, it's absolute crap. It's basically a huge wealth transfer from the West to the rest of the world. That overshadows any actual climate action, which consists entirely of "pledges" and "goals". The only question is: does Trump actually have the guts to get out, against all the pressure of the Washington lobbyists and establishment? Only time will tell...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2017, @12:19PM (2 children)
The vast majority of the media coverage on terrorism is negative, too. Do you take that as an indictment of the media as well?
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Thursday June 01 2017, @03:42PM (1 child)
The media isn't making a big deal about terrorism being bad because of the amount of icecream it eats or it ordering meatloaf for a person on its staff
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2017, @07:02PM
Found the fox news viewer because icecream and meatloaf a the only kind of critical coverage of Don the Con that fox news ever reports.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by WalksOnDirt on Thursday June 01 2017, @01:08PM (3 children)
What isn't normal is neglecting to mention them in official documents and lying about them when asked. Maybe they are just extremely forgetful, which would make them incompetent, but I think that's unlikely.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday June 01 2017, @04:40PM (2 children)
Not to mention...correct me if I'm wrong...they were attempting to use Russian secure channels, which seems to imply that they didn't want our intelligence agencies to know what was being discussed. Nothing suspicious there right??? I'd say this is why people like John McCain and anyone else paying attention aren't buying the bullshit about this being standard procedure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2017, @10:20PM (1 child)
I know, right? What's he afraid of? It's not like there are leakers in the US agencies...
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Friday June 02 2017, @12:09AM
Oh give me a Gold-damned fucking break. The "leakers" in these agencies are more like whistle blowers than anything. The "leaks" come from genuine concern because the jackass in the whitehouse and probably his whole family are basically owned by the Kremlin, as Putin most likely has airtight proof of their credit lines with every shady oligarch and mob figure in the country. When are people going to stop defending this guy?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2017, @02:09PM (1 child)
Trump actively and enthusiastically aided and abetted Russian President Vladimir Putin's plot against America. This is the scandal. It already exists—in plain sight.
As soon as the news broke a year ago that the Russians had penetrated the Democratic National Committee's computer systems, Trump launched a campaign of denial and distraction. For months, he refused to acknowledge the Kremlin's role. He questioned expert and government findings that pinned the blame on Moscow. He refused to condemn Putin. Far from treating these acts of information warfare seriously, he attempted to politicize and delegitimize the evidence. Meanwhile, he and his supporters encouraged more Russian hacking. All told, Trump provided cover for a foreign government's attempt to undermine American democracy. Through a propaganda campaign of his own, he helped Russia get away with it. As James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, testified to Congress this spring, Trump "helps the Russians by obfuscating who was actually responsible."
On June 15, 2016, the day after the Washington Post reported that the DNC had been hacked and that cybersecurity experts had identified two groups linked to the Russian government as the perps, Trump's campaign issued a statement blaming the victim: "We believe it was the DNC that did the 'hacking' as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader." The intent was obvious: to impede somber consideration of the Russian intervention, to have voters and reporters see it as just another silly political hullabaloo.
In August, during his first intelligence briefing as the Republican presidential nominee, Trump was reportedly told that there were direct links between the hacks and the Russian government. [nbcnews.com] Still, he didn't change his tune. During a September 8 interview with RT, [politico.com] the Kremlin-controlled broadcaster that has been accused of disseminating fake news and propaganda, Trump discounted the Russian connection: "I think maybe the Democrats are putting that out. Who knows, but I think it's pretty unlikely." (Yes, he did this on RT.) He repeated a similar line at the first presidential debate at the end of that month, with his famous reference to how the DNC hacker "could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?"
What could be better for Putin? The US government had called him out, yet the GOP presidential candidate was discrediting this conclusion. Trump made it tougher for Obama and the White House to denounce Putin publicly—to do so, they feared, would give Trump cause to argue they were trying to rig the election against him.
For a hot second in january he finally admitted the truth: "As far as hacking, I think it was Russia." [theblaze.com] But then he went right back to calling it a hoax.
This country needs a thorough and public investigation to sort out how the Russian operation worked, how US intelligence and the Obama administration responded, and how Trump and his associates interacted with Russia and WikiLeaks. But whatever happened out of public view, the existing record is already conclusively shameful. Trump and his crew were active enablers of Putin's operation to subvert an American election. That is fire, not smoke. That is scandal enough.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2017, @07:59PM
Shit just got lit.
Not only did Putin admit Russia did it, he threatened Trump not to say anything bad about Russia or he'd get the same treatment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/world/europe/vladimir-putin-donald-trump-hacking.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 2) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Friday June 02 2017, @04:13AM
For a "fake news" story the body count of ex-Trump officials keeps growing. If its all fake why doesn't Trump stand by his guns and keep his Russian tainted staff? After all, as you say, "there's no evidence"?
If there's no evidence, why is he trying to suppress a no-evidence investigation? Is he so stupid as to not realize that obstructing an investigation into a "no evidence/fake news" story wouldn't give it legs - AND prove to be a major crime as well? He could be impeached for obstructing justice into a fake news story - a well deserved and ironic fate for The Donald.
https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling