By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump Sought Assurance From Fox News Before Leaving Paris Climate Deal

 

Does this surprise you?

No 34 37.36%
 
Yes 4 4.40%
 
Covfefe 53 58.24%
 
Total:91
JRPGfan said:
Rem87919394 said:
I'm not a fan of Fox News but CNN and MSNBC are just as bad

imo:

MSNBC = Slight favor dems.

CNN = more balanced, slight favor of dems.

Fox News = heavily favors republicans (more likely to report "fake news" or twist truths to their agenda)

 

And no CNN and MSNBC arnt "just as bad".

Fox news is in a catagory all its own.

Slight favor? Lay off the drugs. CNN and msnbc are horrible



Around the Network

I don't blame him. It's a tough decision. Either call MIT and make sure he actually is getting the facts right or call Fox and be fellated for 20minutes. Tough call...



sundin13 said:

I don't blame him. It's a tough decision. Either call MIT and make sure he actually is getting the facts right or call Fox and be fellated for 20minutes. Tough call...

Science is fake news, sundin. Wake up.



Rem87919394 said:
JRPGfan said:

imo:

MSNBC = Slight favor dems.

CNN = more balanced, slight favor of dems.

Fox News = heavily favors republicans (more likely to report "fake news" or twist truths to their agenda)

 

And no CNN and MSNBC arnt "just as bad".

Fox news is in a catagory all its own.

Slight favor? Lay off the drugs. CNN and msnbc are horrible

Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon should birth a kid to be the savior of the alt-left.



etking said:
AAA300 said:

So you don't  think spending  trillions  to lower it by 0.2  is good? Strange....

Paris is a bad and stupid deal because there are no immediately effective restrictions for China and India which means that trillions are spent to move millions of western high environmental standard mining related jobs there without reducing anything. And it would create a mining based monopoly in their favor.

If we really want to try to change our climate, and the UN climate group says that a serious prediction of climate change is impossible due to it's complexity, we would need much more drastic measures involving India and China which are by far the top polluters.
Drastic measures like abandoning all fossil-fuel-driven cars and planes which does not seem possible or practical and the results are still unknown. And the next ice age is coming anyway or we end up like mars. The future of the climate most likely out of our control.

Actually its the US and China which are the top polluters and when you look at the numbers, the US emitted almost twice as much as China and 8 times as much as India per capita.  This means based on the total amount of people within each nation the US emites 16.07 tons while China is at 7.73 and India is 1.87.  China does emmit the most CO2 but then again its population is 1.4 billion while the US is 325 and India is 1.3.

What this really mean is that when someone throws out numbers, they only use the numbers that make them look good.  During Trump speach he only used numbers to make it seems like the US isn't the worlds top polluter based on total output ignoring of course the fact that based on population the US is twice as bad as its nearest nation even when that nation has 3 times the population.

Anyway the rest of your opinion reads like, "Hey lets do nothing because its too late so burn the world and kill the future".



Around the Network
StarOcean said:
Aeolus451 said:

Hmm. You're somewhere on the left even if you don't adhere to any label but I could be wrong. You could just depise trump for all I know. No one really asks eachother what they believe on the issues. 

As I said before in other posts, we can still mine and use the coal in a more cleaner way while researching clean energy sources that can meet world's demands. We don't have to sacrifice the livelihood of those miners or other natural resource industries to develope clean energy. Eventually, coal will be phased out as technology improves. The paris accord is really just a token measure to lessen emissions because it doesn't really accomplish much. It's a shit deal for america in terms of jobs lost and the money we have to shell out to underdeveloped countries for a tiny barely measurable return for the environment. The tradeoff isn't worth it especially with the US paying out foreign aid. No one is saying we shouldn't do what we can to stop ourselves from destroying the planet but solutions have to be practical with what it costs and we gain from it. Any measure to improve the environment is not automatically a good idea. 

I wouldn't say that I'm left or right. Politically, I'm a mutt. I take from both sides, central, and as you have noticed even alt-right and alt-left on issues. I mostly follow my own beliefs. If it seems I am left or right that is purely situational as I am also anti-political party. Rather Im pro-policy. I'd never vote left or right because it is the "correct" party but rather go by the one which goes by my beliefs. Right now I consider Dem and Reps the same party but aim for slightly different agendas. Dems push more for the environment which is why some might see me as a Dem even though Im disgusted by them as well. Both are what I consider right wing parties anyway. That all being said, I believe aligning with any party compromises individuality and makes people more likely to agree to things they dont agree with which is never a good idea. That all said, I am anti-Trump. Pro-environment. Dems and Reps I dont care about. 

And I do see your point. However I find it hard to believe the coal and other industries would have everyone out of a job so fast. In fact if the gov invested enough, the transition could occur before anyone loses a job at all. That is, wishful thinking though, since this admin has an odd disdain towards science. At the same time you know this deal has little impact and is mostly a suggestion. Backing away from it makes the US look bad. Which could be temporary depending on what Trump does. But I have no hope of Trump not doing something worse in the future

I'm kinda the same with being a mut. I'm a right leaning libertarian. I don't fit neatly into a political group so I just vote whatever is closer to where I line up and that's republicans most of the time. I'll vote for someone just because of a single issue. In my opinion, voting for independents is pointless unless they co-op one of the two parties.  I'll just agree to disagree on trump.



Zerohedge > horse shit > CNN + CNBC + FOX NEWS



Aeolus451 said:
StarOcean said:

I wouldn't say that I'm left or right. Politically, I'm a mutt. I take from both sides, central, and as you have noticed even alt-right and alt-left on issues. I mostly follow my own beliefs. If it seems I am left or right that is purely situational as I am also anti-political party. Rather Im pro-policy. I'd never vote left or right because it is the "correct" party but rather go by the one which goes by my beliefs. Right now I consider Dem and Reps the same party but aim for slightly different agendas. Dems push more for the environment which is why some might see me as a Dem even though Im disgusted by them as well. Both are what I consider right wing parties anyway. That all being said, I believe aligning with any party compromises individuality and makes people more likely to agree to things they dont agree with which is never a good idea. That all said, I am anti-Trump. Pro-environment. Dems and Reps I dont care about. 

And I do see your point. However I find it hard to believe the coal and other industries would have everyone out of a job so fast. In fact if the gov invested enough, the transition could occur before anyone loses a job at all. That is, wishful thinking though, since this admin has an odd disdain towards science. At the same time you know this deal has little impact and is mostly a suggestion. Backing away from it makes the US look bad. Which could be temporary depending on what Trump does. But I have no hope of Trump not doing something worse in the future

I'm kinda the same with being a mut. I'm a right leaning libertarian. I don't fit neatly into a political group so I just vote whatever is closer to where I line up and that's republicans most of the time. I'll vote for someone just because of a single issue. In my opinion, voting for independents is pointless unless they co-op one of the two parties.  I'll just agree to disagree on trump.

I agree with the independent thing. Also, I have a question. What is a Libertarian? Never bothered to check. Whats that ideologies core beliefs?



StarOcean said:
Aeolus451 said:

I'm kinda the same with being a mut. I'm a right leaning libertarian. I don't fit neatly into a political group so I just vote whatever is closer to where I line up and that's republicans most of the time. I'll vote for someone just because of a single issue. In my opinion, voting for independents is pointless unless they co-op one of the two parties.  I'll just agree to disagree on trump.

I agree with the independent thing. Also, I have a question. What is a Libertarian? Never bothered to check. Whats that ideologies core beliefs?

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal.



StarOcean said:
Aeolus451 said:

I'm kinda the same with being a mut. I'm a right leaning libertarian. I don't fit neatly into a political group so I just vote whatever is closer to where I line up and that's republicans most of the time. I'll vote for someone just because of a single issue. In my opinion, voting for independents is pointless unless they co-op one of the two parties.  I'll just agree to disagree on trump.

I agree with the independent thing. Also, I have a question. What is a Libertarian? Never bothered to check. Whats that ideologies core beliefs?

Here's a explanation of the different schools of libertarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism 

Here's the basic pitch.

"Libertarianism is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment, and self-ownership.

Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power. However, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or to dissolve coercive social institutions."

 

Here's the stances for a basic libertarian on the issues. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Libertarian_Party.htm