Octopus Overlords

Trump: "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris."

Is it possible that he just doesn't know what the Paris Agreement is?

I'd say it's nearly a given.

I think it's a given he's not really sure what an agreement is.

Max Peck wrote:To what extent can state governments mitigate the lack of federal leadership on environmental issues?

Generally speaking, (based on what I understand), if the feds have a law on the books about something, then the stateys can implement something tougher but not softer. So, a complete lack of federal regulation on a particular issue gives individual states free rein to implement their own. This is great if you live in a blue state, but then when Corporate Overlord Coal Company decides to open up a new toxic waste generation facility, they'll just open it up next door in Red Bumfuck (from where it will spread around via atmosphere and riverways). It's ok though, because you can just shoot pollution using guns. Or it doesn't actually exist and is a liberal myth. I forget which one.

Captain Caveman wrote:Listening to him in the rose garden, he seems to think global warming and the Paris accords are conspiracies to disadvantage the American economy. His reasoning for abandoning the agreement was borne out of such transparent insecurity and resentment-- "they're all laughing at us" and "they're pulling one over on us" kind of nonsense.

I mean, they're certainly all laughing at us now.

Grifman wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Also it's important to remember that due to the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, you can control over a third of Senate seats with far less than that in votes, due to 300,000 people in Montana counting as much as tens of millions in California. Which means that probably something like 20% of voters (not even 20% of the population, mind you) can cockblock the entire U.S. treaty function.

Of course that ignores the small Democratic states like Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware that can do the same as Montana. It's not like the R have a lock on small population states.

And for the record, Montana has over 1 million people in it, more than Vermont and Delaware, and almost as many as Rhode Island.

Sure, the minority could consist of democratic states as easily as it could republican states. The point is that a relatively small minority of the population can block treaties that the vast majority of the people want.

And the number that I picked (without googling it) was intended to represent voters, not the entire population. Which in the last senate race there (2014) was ~350,000.

Though Mr. Peck is right that this isn't really on topic, I suppose.

NickAragua wrote:

Max Peck wrote:To what extent can state governments mitigate the lack of federal leadership on environmental issues?

Generally speaking, (based on what I understand), if the feds have a law on the books about something, then the stateys can implement something tougher but not softer. So, a complete lack of federal regulation on a particular issue gives individual states free rein to implement their own. This is great if you live in a blue state, but then when Corporate Overlord Coal Company decides to open up a new toxic waste generation facility, they'll just open it up next door in Red Bumfuck (from where it will spread around via atmosphere and riverways). It's ok though, because you can just shoot pollution using guns. Or it doesn't actually exist and is a liberal myth. I forget which one.

Also depends which state you are. If you're California, you can pack a lot of punch by yourself by imposing stricter environmental requirements for goods sold in your state, because no one's going to want to not do business in California. So of course Trump wants to limit California's ability to do that. Though it's unclear if he'll be able to succeed.

Of course, on the other hand if you're Vermont, you can impose all the strict environmental requirements that you want, and it won't matter as much because who cares about not being able to do business in Vermont.

Definitely some similar reactions in this thread to Trump initiating the Apocalypse by ditching the Paris deal.

El Guapo wrote:because who cares about not being able to do business in Vermont.

Once the price of black market Ben and Jerry's hits $100 a pint I think you'll change your tune.

Holman wrote:Trump: "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris."

The mayor of Pittsburgh also just pointed out that Trump lost Pittsburgh 80-20.

Moliere wrote:Definitely some similar reactions in this thread to Trump initiating the Apocalypse by ditching the Paris deal.

it was hard to get past the bullshit intro to this garbage but then it became sublimely ironic. It pretty much is a derpy piece of incredibly dishonest hyperbole about supposed hyperbole.

malchior wrote:

Moliere wrote:Definitely some similar reactions in this thread to Trump initiating the Apocalypse by ditching the Paris deal.

it was hard to get past the bullshit intro to this garbage but then it became sublimely ironic. It pretty much is a derpy piece of incredibly dishonest hyperbole about supposed hyperbole.

It's so confusing when they both post at each other.

Agreed though, that Federalist article hyperventilates with the best of em!

AMERICA FIRST! BECAUSE CLEAN AIR IS FOR PUSSIES!

malchior wrote:

Fitzy wrote:How about this one. The Senate protects us from the tyranny of the majority. It also give the minority a much bigger voice. That isn't a bug. It is a feature.

I'd argue that it what we have is tyranny of the minority. Any sizable but concentrated faction can paralyze the country. That is an unanticipated bug that we've discovered. Pretending this isn't a potentially fatal issue now is not a great idea considering the results we have seen.

So while the Senate is only a part of the overall system, it is a vital feature that maintains the integrity of our system. Keeping the majority from dominate control is not a bug. It is absolutely a feature and it is in fact the primary feature of the constitution.

Aren't we observing *right now* that is exactly what hasn't happened? How has the integrity of the system been maintained? The Senate has increasingly broken down over the last 15 years. That is a side effect of the undemocratic nature of the chamber. Again what I'm arguing is that this experiement has failed. Not failing. Failed. And time will show that proportional systems tend to be more stable. Maybe it isn't an EC problem but a First Past the Post problem or direct election of Senator problem or confluence of several. Bottom line this system is broken. Trump proves that. The balance of power issues in the Senate prove that. Increasing American isolation over the next few years will prove that out. The ride hasn't started getting real bumpy yet. Unless the Claude Taylor miracle happens and then we'll just have a more gradual decline.

As far as the EC is concerned, I'm not sure where I fall. I understand its purpose, but it wasn't supposed to be a flat group of people voting for the person who got the most votes in their state. I'd consider that a flaw in the current implementation. Given the power the president wields, it may be that he should be elected by a majority. And maybe we should take a hard look at the EC.

The Senate is different. It serves a very specific purpose and I believe it has done so in the intended manner. Even the past few years where we saw Republican obstructionism, we were well within the intended design. Many people may not have liked it, but it was working as designed. Personally I think the Republicans went too far and they did pay a price. We'll see what happens in 2018 and 2020.

The issue with our current system isn't one of the design of our government. It's that the two party system has split to leave the middle out. When the two parties have to fight for the middle, there's compromise. When they don't, as the current case, no compromise. It's a cycle of ideology over pragmatism. It's one we have hit before and will again. Your Civil War example, for example. The two sides were split over ideology. There was literally no possible solution to the issue of slavery short of war. Unless the south had been willing to give in. That's an extreme situation and one I hope we will never see again.

Today is far different. There isn't a single issue driving a wedge between people. There are multiple. And worse yet, it's all about doing things in one way. We can't compromise, because we are driven by ideology. Ideology says: here is the solution and ignores the problem. There is no other way.

Healthcare, the democrats are defending to the death the ACA while republicans are willing to go down to get rid of it. Both are ideological positions. There doesn't even need to be a single solution. That is what federalism was supposed to be about. 50 (well 13) different solutions. States could say, whoa, look at Rhode Island they have cool roads, we should copy them. But they didn't have to. But "states rights" was co-opted by the damn racists and now it's a dirty word. Almost as dirty as compromise.

Look at the tax issue. We are actually arguing whether or not tax cuts or increases should happen. Each side has a position. The democrats say we need a tax increase. The republicans say we need tax cuts. These are both solutions in search of a problem. What problem does either actually solve? We need money to run the government. Taxes should reflect that reality.

Even spending is the same way. Democrats, we need more money. Republicans, we need less money. Nobody is redefining the missions of the federal departments to actually accomplish something and then assigning the money needed to accomplish it. What the fuck is a 10% across the board cut going to do? Does the department suddenly have less of a mission? Nope. Oh here's more money based on a random amount we could get. It's not enough to do your mission, but we win!

It's all about the ideology.

The problems with the Senate are reflections of the problem. The Senate is not the problem, just a symptom.

El Guapo wrote:
And Fitzy, you can see all of the attention that gets lavished on Montana courtesy of the electoral college.

I don't believe I made any EC argument. Though it's possible I misunderstand the debate. I can see the relationship between the Senate and the EC in that both are not representative of the nation as a whole. I'd suggest that the EC has been watered down from its original intent and would have only historical sadness if we were to replace it.

The Senate I will stand up for though. It does what it is supposed to. Any issues can be traced back to broader problems within the electorate and the divisive nature of ideology.

Max Peck wrote:While a heated debate about senate reform is ironically appropos for this topic, perhaps it warrants a thread of its own.

Ah. Oops.

Only 50% of the population votes in presidential elections. Of course 25% are passionate liberals and 25% are passionate conservatives so they gravitate to the extremes and the parties feed off it. That's not a problem with the government, that's a problem with the people.

noxiousdog wrote:Only 50% of the population votes in presidential elections. Of course 25% are passionate liberals and 25% are passionate conservatives so they gravitate to the extremes and the parties feed off it. That's not a problem with the government, that's a problem with the people.

I don't know. If we could find some way to make the parties more appealing to a larger group, you might get more voter turnout. Somehow other countries manage large majority numbers of people at the voting booths and America only has a voting minority. I'd like to think that if there was someone who broke out of either party and appealed to people across the lines, they'd get a larger voting community.

Until Trump, I deliberately abstained from voting because I felt like every vote came down to choosing between a dogshit taco and week-old uncarbonated piss cola. When he came along there was a clear threat to the country and I did the best I could with my one vote. With him, it was more like choosing between a dogshit taco and a ravenous plague-bearing zombie horde poised to decimate and consume humanity. I ate the taco.

I think this guy, Donny, is DEFINING how irrelevant the executive branch can be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Danny's only goal in this was a photo op in the rose garden. Weeee! Everyone us noticing me again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paingod wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:Only 50% of the population votes in presidential elections. Of course 25% are passionate liberals and 25% are passionate conservatives so they gravitate to the extremes and the parties feed off it. That's not a problem with the government, that's a problem with the people.

I don't know. If we could find some way to make the parties more appealing to a larger group, you might get more voter turnout. Somehow other countries manage large majority numbers of people at the voting booths and America only has a voting minority. I'd like to think that if there was someone who broke out of either party and appealed to people across the lines, they'd get a larger voting community.

Until Trump, I deliberately abstained from voting because I felt like every vote came down to choosing between a dogshit taco and week-old uncarbonated piss cola. When he came along there was a clear threat to the country and I did the best I could with my one vote. With him, it was more like choosing between a dogshit taco and a ravenous plague-bearing zombie horde poised to decimate and consume humanity. I ate the taco.

Yeah, I'm pretty much in the same boat philosophically speaking. I wind up voting in all the major elections but it's kind of pointless in MA, since the state leans so far to the left that any more and it'd wrap around to "doomsday prepper moon landing was faked" territory, so the main attraction is voting on ballot questions. Meanwhile, the French were worried about "low voter turnout" of "only" 66%. That's cute, guys.

Now that I own a house though and have "put down roots", so to speak, I've decided to religiously vote in town elections, since those guys actually make decisions that impact my daily life. For example, the previous board of selectmen (through incompetence or bribery) settled with a company to allow an asphalt plant to open in the industrial section of town. Thus, I'm looking forward to breathing in fumes from the local pipe facility.

An alliance of the nation's biggest states could short-circuit Trump's vow to leave the Paris Agreement

President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that the US would exit the Paris Agreement on climate change. Questions of how international treaties work aside, the actions of people on the ground in the US might circumvent the Trump announcement — causing the US to lower greenhouse-gas emissions to the goals set by the Paris Agreement anyway, despite the actions of the president.

Governors of some of the largest states in the country are already taking action.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York, Gov. Jerry Brown of California, and Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington announced the formation of the United States Climate Alliance after the announcement, saying they would convene states committed to upholding the Paris Agreement and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

"The White House's reckless decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement has devastating repercussions not only for the United States, but for our planet. This administration is abdicating its leadership and taking a backseat to other countries in the global fight against climate change," Cuomo said in a statement emailed to Business Insider. "New York State is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington's irresponsible actions. We will not ignore the science and reality of climate change which is why I am also signing an Executive Order confirming New York's leadership role in protecting our citizens, our environment, and our planet."

Brown was just as direct on a call with reporters organized by the World Resources Institute.

"This is an insane move by this president — the world depends on a sustainable future," Brown said. "It's tragic, but out of that tragedy I believe the rest of the world will mobilize, will galvanize our efforts."

As Christiana Figueres, the former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — who led the talks that created the Paris Agreement in December 2015 — said on that same call, it was always people in states, cities, and companies who would be working to cut emissions. Now, they might be doing the same — just without the mandate from the federal government.

"I think they will do so with much more enthusiasm after today," Figueres said.

Not only by big states, but by close to 70 cities and counting representing 40 million people--including Chicago, Denver, etc.

You can already see other countries referring to the 'Parexit' decision as one made by 'the US Federal Government' as a distinct entity from 'the US.'

I'm sure once we officially get rid of Governor Flip-Flop here in NJ and officially elect a Democrat, you can add NJ to the list. It'll probably be right after they legalize the Devil's Lettuce.

Enough wrote:

malchior wrote:

Moliere wrote:Definitely some similar reactions in this thread to Trump initiating the Apocalypse by ditching the Paris deal.

it was hard to get past the bullshit intro to this garbage but then it became sublimely ironic. It pretty much is a derpy piece of incredibly dishonest hyperbole about supposed hyperbole.

It's so confusing when they both post at each other.

Agreed though, that Federalist article hyperventilates with the best of em!

That Federalist article really was an utter load of dishonest stupidity. What really blew my mind is how they'd exaggerate some supposedly liberal lefty loony overreaction to Trump's Paris withdrawal, then quote the actual reaction immediately after, despite the fact that 9 times out of 10, it didn't remotely reflect their made up lies about what said liberal lefty loony was saying. I guess they're banking on the fact that none of their readers are actually paying attention. I really feel dumber for having read that. Thanks, Moliere!

I like it, in theory. It will be interesting to see what happens between governments that use states rights and federal leverage to behave as carpetbagging deregulation states and the Asian and European nations that have moved their industry to them. Will there be carbon pressure on the companies? The countries of incorporation? The location of manufacturing? What about energy sourcing?

On seeing everyone's reaction to his decree, and watching them strengthen their resolve instead of bend knee, I wish Trump felt like this. I know he doesn't, though. I'm sure he's strutting around thinking to himself "WINNING!!!" ...

LordMortis wrote:I like it, in theory. It will be interesting to see what happens between governments that use states rights and federal leverage to behave as carpetbagging deregulation states and the Asian and European nations that have moved their industry to them. Will there be carbon pressure on the companies? The countries of incorporation? The location of manufacturing? What about energy sourcing?

My friend who has made a carreer running VC funds investing solely in clean tech feels that the Paris exist, while awful symbolically for the U.S., really won't have much of a practical impact for many of the reasons you state above. The carbon pressure on companies and industries has been building up over time, and it's not going to dissipate just because of Trump.

Kurth wrote:The carbon pressure on companies and industries has been building up over time, and it's not going to dissipate just because of Trump.

Insurance companies may end up saving the world for us. They're going to be pushing to resolve climate change to avoid massive payouts for flooding and extreme weather. I can easily see them driving rates up for people who aren't trying to make things better.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... urce=atlfb

On Wednesday, as rumors of the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord swirled, Musk said he was leaving the advisory councils over the move. On Thursday, after Trump announced the nation would indeed exit the agreement, Musk followed through on his promise:

Oil gas giant ExxonMobil supported the U.S. remaining in the pact, as did Rex Tillerson, the company’s former CEO and Trump’s secretary of state.

Paingod wrote:

Kurth wrote:The carbon pressure on companies and industries has been building up over time, and it's not going to dissipate just because of Trump.

Insurance companies may end up saving the world for us. They're going to be pushing to resolve climate change to avoid massive payouts for flooding and extreme weather. I can easily see them driving rates up for people who aren't trying to make things better.

You should read up on the Flood Insurance Program, because it's not the insurance industry that's paying out claims. They get paid to administer the release of funds, but the money isn't coming from the private industry.

I can only imagine what's going to happen when someone explains this to Trump.

Kurth wrote:I really feel dumber for having read that. Thanks, Moliere!

Your welcome.

Paingod wrote:

Kurth wrote:The carbon pressure on companies and industries has been building up over time, and it's not going to dissipate just because of Trump.

Insurance companies may end up saving the world for us. They're going to be pushing to resolve climate change to avoid massive payouts for flooding and extreme weather. I can easily see them driving rates up for people who aren't trying to make things better.

I've heard this idea before. It'll hinge on if they can accurately predict the risk which is tough since it is a theoretical model. There are also workforce development issues. Millennials are not by and large going to work for big evil polluter even if it is indirect.

malchior wrote:Millennials are not by and large going to work for big evil polluter even if it is indirect.

And Non-Millennials will? What even qualifies as a "big evil polluter?" What garbage.

Heh, and people thought I was exaggerating when I said he'd do it out of pure spite.
https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/stat ... 6512510976

Stiggin It!

So Pittsburgh decided to stick it to Trump and declared that they will be the first US city powered 100% be renewable energy.

And Bloomberg is going to personally pay our obligations to the UN under the Paris Agreement.

All these things are announced as consequences of Trump's stupidity. How long until the Dunce and his minions claim credit for all of these things happening because of the vision he showed in telling that Eurotrash to get bent?

RunningMn9 wrote:So Pittsburgh decided to stick it to Trump and declared that they will be the first US city powered 100% be renewable energy.

This would be incredible if they could accomplish it. My Dad and grandmother would tell me stories about the smog that clogged the air there. While I never saw anything all that bad, it's amazing how much has changed even in my lifetime.

msteelers wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:So Pittsburgh decided to stick it to Trump and declared that they will be the first US city powered 100% be renewable energy.

This would be incredible if they could accomplish it. My Dad and grandmother would tell me stories about the smog that clogged the air there. While I never saw anything all that bad, it's amazing how much has changed even in my lifetime.

I thought someone else already made that claim. Burlington maybe?

Mike Pence: "For some reason, this issue of climate change has emerged as a paramount issue for the left..."
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/870615261409189888

Pence's Aw-Shucksism is among his most revolting features. To him it's just common sense that climate change is no big deal.

What disgusts me is the GOP's intellectual bankruptcy and how issues are bent to serve ideology.

Economic theory shows the private market fails at curbing pollution and government action is required to prevent free riders. History shows humans have worsened the environment, but able to fix water, air and ozone degradation.

Pence is a blind fool.

Holman wrote:Mike Pence: "For some reason, this issue of climate change has emerged as a paramount issue for the left..."

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/870615261409189888

Pence's Aw-Shucksism is among his most revolting features. To him it's just common sense that climate change is no big deal.

That's a straight-up appeal to tribalism. 70% of Americans say they are concerned about climate change, so a fair number of Republicans must disapprove of Trump's actions. Calling them closet liberals is likely to be effective.