5 ms·

The Paris Agreement is non-binding, virtue-signaling nonsense, thankfully we withdrew from it. > While the USA slowly is slowly led into international irreleva

The Paris Agreement is non-binding, virtue-signaling nonsense, thankfully we withdrew from it. > While the USA slowly is slowly led into international irrelevance by the Republican Party Anti-US, Anti-Republican bias is becoming very tiresome.

markdown 6y ago
> The Paris Agreement is non-binding, virtue-signaling nonsense "non-binding, virtue-signaling nonsense" is a politician's wet dream. If it made the US look good without actually requiring them to do anything, why did Trump withdraw? Do you even logic? > Anti-US, Anti-Republican bias is becoming very tiresome. In that case, make sure you go out and vote. You can help MAGA by voting out the buffoon currently leading that nation. As a bonus, a republican party without Trump and the white supremacists he emboldened would be a party more people will find palatable.
- newfriend 6y ago
  > "non-binding, virtue-signaling nonsense" is a politician's wet dream. If it made the US look good without actually requiring them to do anything, why did Trump withdraw? Do you even logic? This is the problem, you value appearances over reality. > In that case, make sure you go out and vote. No problem, already voted for Trump. > You can help MAGA by voting out the buffoon currently leading that nation. As a bonus, a republican party without Trump and the white supremacists he emboldened would be a party more people will find palatable. Oh no! Emboldening muh white supremacists, aka literally nothing. I think you're consuming far too much biased media from wherever you are in the world. If you're looking for problems in the US currently, look no further than the endless looting and rioting by left-wing agitators, not some bogeyman white supremacist lurking about. > would be a party more people will find palatable. You mean a party which a Democrat would find palatable, no thanks. I had no love for Republicans until Trump came along. The best part about Trump is that he doesn't simply bend over whenever met with criticism. I recall Bush, McCain, Romney all being called Nazis at some point. These attacks no longer hold any meaning. On another note, it would be nice if foreigners like you would stop trying to influence the US election.
  - markdown 6y ago
    > On another note, it would be nice if foreigners like you would stop trying to influence the US election. How did you guess I wasn't Russian?
nine_zeros 6y ago
Sometimes I can't even understand what goes on in that brain. Is it so hard to grasp that the non-binding agreement made by countries is a signal of unity? That we stand together to save humanity? That it signals to domestic population to start talking about these problems and come up with solutions both at government and individual level? Jesus Christ! You make it seem like humans are only capable of binding resolutions enforced by some big daddy. Grow up!
- newfriend 6y ago
  The problem with non-binding agreements is the same as unenforced laws -- those who are "good" people follow the rules, and those who are "bad" don't. In a competitive environment, those who have no qualms about breaking the law (agreement) are at an advantage. China and other countries are trying to compete with the US economically, and this agreement would provide a way to do that via unequal outrage. US haters are already doing it, condemning the US (even though it's been lowering emissions for a while now), and making excuses for China and other major polluters because they are "developing countries". Meanwhile China is largely immune to internal criticism, and basically faces no meaningful pressure externally (aside from Trump, for other reasons). This would have been bad for the US. Your views on this are emotional and overly simplistic. Grow up!
  - nine_zeros 6y ago
    > The problem with non-binding agreements is the same as unenforced laws -- those who are "good" people follow the rules, and those who are "bad" don't. In a competitive environment, those who have no qualms about breaking the law (agreement) are at an advantage. I agree with this. See: How rogue countries such as US just walked out of non-binding Paris accord. However, there is no big daddy to enforce any agreement. Anyone trying to be a big daddy and force other countries to submission will only lead to another world war This has played out before, right after WW1 where America and UK tried to subjugate Prussia to shame. It only led to simmering tensions and WW2. That is exactly the reason why after WW2, Roosevelt decided to lead the world with multipolar institutions, where many powers have a stake in the well being of the world. With big daddy diplomacy, there will be winners and losers and the next WW will not forgiving on mankind. Before accusing someone of simplicity and emotions, acknowledge that you may have gaps in your understanding of WHY we do non-binding agreements. Do your homework, learn some history.

markdown 6y ago

> The Paris Agreement is non-binding, virtue-signaling nonsense "non-binding, virtue-signaling nonsense" is a politician's wet dream. If it made the US look good without actually requiring them to do anything, why did Trump withdraw? Do you even logic? > Anti-US, Anti-Republican bias is becoming very tiresome. In that case, make sure you go out and vote. You can help MAGA by voting out the buffoon currently leading that nation. As a bonus, a republican party without Trump and the white supremacists he emboldened would be a party more people will find palatable.

newfriend 6y ago
> "non-binding, virtue-signaling nonsense" is a politician's wet dream. If it made the US look good without actually requiring them to do anything, why did Trump withdraw? Do you even logic? This is the problem, you value appearances over reality. > In that case, make sure you go out and vote. No problem, already voted for Trump. > You can help MAGA by voting out the buffoon currently leading that nation. As a bonus, a republican party without Trump and the white supremacists he emboldened would be a party more people will find palatable. Oh no! Emboldening muh white supremacists, aka literally nothing. I think you're consuming far too much biased media from wherever you are in the world. If you're looking for problems in the US currently, look no further than the endless looting and rioting by left-wing agitators, not some bogeyman white supremacist lurking about. > would be a party more people will find palatable. You mean a party which a Democrat would find palatable, no thanks. I had no love for Republicans until Trump came along. The best part about Trump is that he doesn't simply bend over whenever met with criticism. I recall Bush, McCain, Romney all being called Nazis at some point. These attacks no longer hold any meaning. On another note, it would be nice if foreigners like you would stop trying to influence the US election.
- markdown 6y ago
  > On another note, it would be nice if foreigners like you would stop trying to influence the US election. How did you guess I wasn't Russian?

nine_zeros 6y ago

Sometimes I can't even understand what goes on in that brain. Is it so hard to grasp that the non-binding agreement made by countries is a signal of unity? That we stand together to save humanity? That it signals to domestic population to start talking about these problems and come up with solutions both at government and individual level? Jesus Christ! You make it seem like humans are only capable of binding resolutions enforced by some big daddy. Grow up!

newfriend 6y ago
The problem with non-binding agreements is the same as unenforced laws -- those who are "good" people follow the rules, and those who are "bad" don't. In a competitive environment, those who have no qualms about breaking the law (agreement) are at an advantage. China and other countries are trying to compete with the US economically, and this agreement would provide a way to do that via unequal outrage. US haters are already doing it, condemning the US (even though it's been lowering emissions for a while now), and making excuses for China and other major polluters because they are "developing countries". Meanwhile China is largely immune to internal criticism, and basically faces no meaningful pressure externally (aside from Trump, for other reasons). This would have been bad for the US. Your views on this are emotional and overly simplistic. Grow up!
- nine_zeros 6y ago
  > The problem with non-binding agreements is the same as unenforced laws -- those who are "good" people follow the rules, and those who are "bad" don't. In a competitive environment, those who have no qualms about breaking the law (agreement) are at an advantage. I agree with this. See: How rogue countries such as US just walked out of non-binding Paris accord. However, there is no big daddy to enforce any agreement. Anyone trying to be a big daddy and force other countries to submission will only lead to another world war This has played out before, right after WW1 where America and UK tried to subjugate Prussia to shame. It only led to simmering tensions and WW2. That is exactly the reason why after WW2, Roosevelt decided to lead the world with multipolar institutions, where many powers have a stake in the well being of the world. With big daddy diplomacy, there will be winners and losers and the next WW will not forgiving on mankind. Before accusing someone of simplicity and emotions, acknowledge that you may have gaps in your understanding of WHY we do non-binding agreements. Do your homework, learn some history.