5 ms·

I think the problem in USA right now is that a very vocal part of the country is very much against the president and his every decision will be judged without l

by usaphp 9y ago

I think the problem in USA right now is that a very vocal part of the country is very much against the president and his every decision will be judged without listening to his reasoning, that's a very bad situation, and I can't imagine how any president can be productive in this environment... Edit: I was not implying that what he did with Paris Agreement is right/wrong, I was just trying to tell that it's hard to work in an environment where every decision you make is judged with negativity right away.

archgoon 9y ago
Oh, please provide a link to the presidents reasoning.
- usaphp 9y ago
  You see, that's a classic example of that. No matter what information I provide you now - you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - stinos 9y ago
    you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change. Well, same can be said of you: I actually wanted to see reasoning and am willing to change my mind on the subject (well, actually not even change, as i don't have a single fixed stance on it because I know I lack the insight), but you're not providing information, instead responding with more negativity :]
    - usaphp 9y ago
      I was not talking about this particular climate change action that he did, I was trying to say "in general" it's hard to change person's mind when he is already negatively looking at the subject.
  - stouset 9y ago
    Okay, but that's basic table stakes for any discussion in which you want to change entrenched parties' minds. In the meantime, you didn't bother to actually provide anything outlining his reasoning. Which is fine, because having listened to his speech announcing the decision, I can state that virtually none of his stated reasons appear to have any sort of relationship with reality. Which is seemingly par for the course for his administration — is it any wonder people are so skeptical of virtually anything he says? For starters, he argues that it allows China and India to build coal plants, while allowing the US to build none. Besides the agreement not even having the word coal in it, the entire thing allows countries to come up with their own standards, that they self-enforce. If the US decided our standard was "a coal plant in every home", it wouldn't actually violate any term of the agreement.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
clumsysmurf 9y ago
The GOP and Trump are doing what the Koch brothers paid them to do. Many GOP lawmakers signed the “No Climate Tax” pledge, drafted by "Americans for Prosperity" that was funded by the Koch brothers. If a GOP lawmaker shows support for green energy, they would see their campaign money dry up, or a primary challenger arise(1). (1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-le... Jane Meyer (author of Dark Money) also talks about this recently http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-the-withdrawal-from-the-paris-climate-agreement-the-koch-brothers-campaign-becomes-overt http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-the-withdrawal-fr...

by usaphp 9y ago

archgoon 9y ago

Oh, please provide a link to the presidents reasoning.

usaphp 9y ago
You see, that's a classic example of that. No matter what information I provide you now - you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- stinos 9y ago
  you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change. Well, same can be said of you: I actually wanted to see reasoning and am willing to change my mind on the subject (well, actually not even change, as i don't have a single fixed stance on it because I know I lack the insight), but you're not providing information, instead responding with more negativity :]
  - usaphp 9y ago
    I was not talking about this particular climate change action that he did, I was trying to say "in general" it's hard to change person's mind when he is already negatively looking at the subject.
- stouset 9y ago
  Okay, but that's basic table stakes for any discussion in which you want to change entrenched parties' minds. In the meantime, you didn't bother to actually provide anything outlining his reasoning. Which is fine, because having listened to his speech announcing the decision, I can state that virtually none of his stated reasons appear to have any sort of relationship with reality. Which is seemingly par for the course for his administration — is it any wonder people are so skeptical of virtually anything he says? For starters, he argues that it allows China and India to build coal plants, while allowing the US to build none. Besides the agreement not even having the word coal in it, the entire thing allows countries to come up with their own standards, that they self-enforce. If the US decided our standard was "a coal plant in every home", it wouldn't actually violate any term of the agreement.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

clumsysmurf 9y ago

The GOP and Trump are doing what the Koch brothers paid them to do. Many GOP lawmakers signed the “No Climate Tax” pledge, drafted by "Americans for Prosperity" that was funded by the Koch brothers. If a GOP lawmaker shows support for green energy, they would see their campaign money dry up, or a primary challenger arise(1). (1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-le... Jane Meyer (author of Dark Money) also talks about this recently http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-the-withdrawal-from-the-paris-climate-agreement-the-koch-brothers-campaign-becomes-overt http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/in-the-withdrawal-fr...