Time to get on the TRUMP train

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

I've see this all Over the Internet

Countries not in the agreement. Countries in the agreement
USA Rest of the world
Syria
Nicaragua

How about this one?

Countries paying for the agreement Countries not paying for the agreement
USA Rest of the world

Why is it such an awful thing to say this is a shitty deal? It's literally the same argument as NATO.

---

With NATO, the U.S. wants more money to "save the world" via it's bloated military. Helpful when you want to make it bigger and better than ever. Unsustainable, even with contributors. Fuck right off.

The Paris Accord is a global issue. A recognition of the problem by a full majority. Everyone on the same rope, do what you can.
"But it penalizes our great country financially. Others will use this to their advantage. They will laugh at us."
Fuck right off

---

% the USA pays = 100%
% the rest of the world Pays = 0%

To put it in words you will understand, Fuck right off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

With NATO, the U.S. wants more money to "save the world" via it's bloated military. Helpful when you want to make it bigger and better than ever. Unsustainable, even with contributors. Fuck right off.

The Paris Accord is a global issue. A recognition of the problem by a full majority. Everyone on the same rope, do what you can.
"But it penalizes our great country financially. Others will use this to their advantage. They will laugh at us."
Fuck right off

---

% the USA pays = 100%
% the rest of the world Pays = 0%

To put it in words you will understand, Fuck right off.

---

Embedded Tweet

worth a thousand words homey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyde

---

Jesus Christ Marty. Never thought I'd see this amount of ignorance from you. Do some fucking research dude. For a smart as fuck dude you are falling for some seriously dumb shit. The glacier ice is melting at a rate never seen before. What you are talking about is surface ice, which just like on a lake forms every year and then melts. The actual glacier ice, meaning the ice that actually makes up all of Antarctica, is melting away at a rate that will raise sea levels to devastating proportions. This is undeniable... It's already happening.

Check this out. Just came out yesterday. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...les/102385980/

The ignorance you are supporting is going to negatively change the course of human civilization for centuries in ways that you can't even imagine... But it's cool though dude, cause we're MAGA!!!

---

Sam Harris describes the Tyde phenomenon perfectly, it's strange.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGgvNeOZbu4

Embedded Tweet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Honestly? I view it all with a sense of increasing relief; once the grownups take back control, we are going to use basically convert our private prison infrastructure into labor camps to house all these rubes, after we charge them with drug felonies naturally so they can no longer vote.

Its gonna be clutch bro.

---

I'm not joking when I say this... Every voter should have to take an IQ test and meet a minimum requirement before being allowed to vote. Maybe this would hurt Democrats more than Republicans, but at this point we at least have to not allow the morons that are drastically increasing in population to not have a say in things that are beyond their understanding. This is the only way we will not see full blown Idiocracy come to fruition in the very near future.

---

You are basically saying you believe in Eugenics. Keep in mind that line of thinking was a central theme of the Nazis.

Lol, what a dumbass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

With NATO, the U.S. wants more money to "save the world" via it's bloated military. Helpful when you want to make it bigger and better than ever. Unsustainable, even with contributors. Fuck right off.

The Paris Accord is a global issue. A recognition of the problem by a full majority. Everyone on the same rope, do what you can.
"But it penalizes our great country financially. Others will use this to their advantage. They will laugh at us."
Fuck right off

---

% the USA pays = 100%
% the rest of the world Pays = 0%

To put it in words you will understand, Fuck right off.

---

USA isn't paying 100% and most $ USA are "paying" consists of loans and investments (just like every other developed country). If all it took was 3b to pay for the whole thing, literally no one would care that USA decided to bail.

The Paris Agreement was just about getting everyone to sit at the same table. Every part of it is voluntary. A better deal doesn't exist.

The developed countries are "paying" for developing countries to not choose the same route in industrialization than we did. It's financed mostly by private financial institutions and funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

% the USA pays = 100%
% the rest of the world Pays = 0%

To put it in words you will understand, Fuck right off.

---

USA isn't paying 100% and most $ USA are "paying" consists of loans and investments (just like every other developed country). If all it took was 3b to pay for the whole thing, literally no one would care that USA decided to bail.

The Paris Agreement was just about getting everyone to sit at the same table. Every part of it is voluntary. A better deal doesn't exist.

The developed countries are "paying" for developing countries to not choose the same route in industrialization than we did. It's financed mostly by private financial institutions and funds.

---

If this were at all true it would change my opinion.

Have proof? I'm not being a smart ass. Everything I've read (and I've said since the start of this thread for someone to tell me what I have read is wrong) says the USA is in for $3B cold hard cash, rest of the world zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Hordell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

I'm not joking when I say this... Every voter should have to take an IQ test and meet a minimum requirement before being allowed to vote. Maybe this would hurt Democrats more than Republicans, but at this point we at least have to not allow the morons that are drastically increasing in population to not have a say in things that are beyond their understanding. This is the only way we will not see full blown Idiocracy come to fruition in the very near future.

---

You are basically saying you believe in Eugenics. Keep in mind that line of thinking was a central theme of the Nazis.

---

If you think this is me saying I believe in Eugenics, you might want to brush up on your understanding of Eugenics. I am most certainly not saying there is a need for selective breeding and creating a master race... All I am saying is voting should not be a God given right just because you were born somewhere and hit a certain age. It should be earned to some degree, and part of earning that right should be to at least be smart enough to be able to separate facts from fiction... or at the very least know that when people tell you Covfefe is an Arabic word they are full of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyde

---

Jesus Christ Marty.Never thought I'd see this amount of ignorance from you. Do some fucking research dude. For a smart as fuck dude you are falling for some seriously dumb shit. The glacier ice is melting at a rate never seen before. What you are talking about is surface ice, which just like on a lake forms every year and then melts. The actual glacier ice, meaning the ice that actually makes up all of Antarctica, is melting away at a rate that will raise sea levels to devastating proportions. This is undeniable... It's already happening.

Check this out. Just came out yesterday. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...les/102385980/

The ignorance you are supporting is going to negatively change the course of human civilization for centuries in ways that you can't even imagine... But it's cool though dude, cause we're MAGA!!!

---

I have to disagree. Marty is the standard Trump supporter. He's lonely, angry, mentally and emotionally unstable. It's the weak minded, like Marty, that get taken so easily. I know Marty thinks he's intelligent, but I didn't think anyone on this board actually believed he was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

USA isn't paying 100% and most $ USA are "paying" consists of loans and investments (just like every other developed country). If all it took was 3b to pay for the whole thing, literally no one would care that USA decided to bail.

The Paris Agreement was just about getting everyone to sit at the same table. Every part of it is voluntary. A better deal doesn't exist.

The developed countries are "paying" for developing countries to not choose the same route in industrialization than we did. It's financed mostly by private financial institutions and funds.

---

If this were at all true it would change my opinion.

Have proof? I'm not being a smart ass. Everything I've read (and I've said since the start of this thread for someone to tell me what I have read is wrong) says the USA is in for $3B cold hard cash, rest of the world zero.

---

At the end of 2014 when US had pledged 500 million to Green Climate Fund (UN operation) they had 10.2b total in pledges from 27 different countries to get the ball rolling.

http://www.greenclimate.fund/documen...5-98cdc456aa63

Then at some point US forked over another 500 million. I have no idea how much Green Climate Fund has money atm but it's more than 1b. That's the public side of financing and even looking that up is a pain. The private side is bigger and even harder to find any kinda total figure this early.

Most of the financing goals are for 2020 (like the 3b from US) and the first major review of progress about anything isn't likely to come before the 2023 summit.

In the next 15 years about 90 trillion will be invested in energy infrastructure. Paris thingie is about trying to push those investment towards renewable and sustainable. It would be good for the planet, but i doubt that's the first priority for interest that private sector has shown for this. With the amount of money at stake 3b isn't too bad of a price to be sitting at the table where it gets decided who gets any given contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

USA isn't paying 100% and most $ USA are "paying" consists of loans and investments (just like every other developed country). If all it took was 3b to pay for the whole thing, literally no one would care that USA decided to bail.

The Paris Agreement was just about getting everyone to sit at the same table. Every part of it is voluntary. A better deal doesn't exist.

The developed countries are "paying" for developing countries to not choose the same route in industrialization than we did. It's financed mostly by private financial institutions and funds.

---

If this were at all true it would change my opinion.

Have proof? I'm not being a smart ass. Everything I've read (and I've said since the start of this thread for someone to tell me what I have read is wrong) says the USA is in for $3B cold hard cash, rest of the world zero.

---

"In his speech announcing his decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord on climate change, President Trump frequently relied on dubious facts and unbalanced claims to make his case that the agreement would hurt the U.S. economy. Notably, he only looked at one side of the scale — claiming the agreement left the United States at a competitive disadvantage, harming U.S. industries. But he often ignored the benefits that could come from tackling climate change, including potential green jobs.
Trump also suggested that the United States was treated unfairly under the agreement. But each of the nations signing the agreement agreed to help lower emissions, based on plans they submitted. So the U.S. target was set by the Obama administration.
The plans are not legally binding, but developing and developed countries are treated differently because developed countries, on a per capita basis, often produce more greenhouse gases than developing countries. For instance, on a per capita basis, the United States in 2015 produced more than double the carbon dioxide emissions of China — and eight times more than India."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/

Read up chip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardBrodiesCombover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

Jesus Christ Marty.Never thought I'd see this amount of ignorance from you. Do some fucking research dude. For a smart as fuck dude you are falling for some seriously dumb shit. The glacier ice is melting at a rate never seen before. What you are talking about is surface ice, which just like on a lake forms every year and then melts. The actual glacier ice, meaning the ice that actually makes up all of Antarctica, is melting away at a rate that will raise sea levels to devastating proportions. This is undeniable... It's already happening.

Check this out. Just came out yesterday. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...les/102385980/

The ignorance you are supporting is going to negatively change the course of human civilization for centuries in ways that you can't even imagine... But it's cool though dude, cause we're MAGA!!!

---

I have to disagree. Marty is the standard Trump supporter. He's lonely, angry, mentally and emotionally unstable. It's the weak minded, like Marty, that get taken so easily. I know Marty thinks he's intelligent, but I didn't think anyone on this board actually believed he was.

---

Exactly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

If this were at all true it would change my opinion.

Have proof? I'm not being a smart ass. Everything I've read (and I've said since the start of this thread for someone to tell me what I have read is wrong) says the USA is in for $3B cold hard cash, rest of the world zero.

---

"In his speech announcing his decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord on climate change, President Trump frequently relied on dubious facts and unbalanced claims to make his case that the agreement would hurt the U.S. economy. Notably, he only looked at one side of the scale — claiming the agreement left the United States at a competitive disadvantage, harming U.S. industries. But he often ignored the benefits that could come from tackling climate change, including potential green jobs.
Trump also suggested that the United States was treated unfairly under the agreement. But each of the nations signing the agreement agreed to help lower emissions, based on plans they submitted. So the U.S. target was set by the Obama administration.
The plans are not legally binding, but developing and developed countries are treated differently because developed countries, on a per capita basis, often produce more greenhouse gases than developing countries. For instance, on a per capita basis, the United States in 2015 produced more than double the carbon dioxide emissions of China — and eight times more than India."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/

Read up chip

---

The results/goals are not binding. The $3B is. That's kind of the issue here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

"In his speech announcing his decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord on climate change, President Trump frequently relied on dubious facts and unbalanced claims to make his case that the agreement would hurt the U.S. economy. Notably, he only looked at one side of the scale — claiming the agreement left the United States at a competitive disadvantage, harming U.S. industries. But he often ignored the benefits that could come from tackling climate change, including potential green jobs.
Trump also suggested that the United States was treated unfairly under the agreement. But each of the nations signing the agreement agreed to help lower emissions, based on plans they submitted. So the U.S. target was set by the Obama administration.
The plans are not legally binding, but developing and developed countries are treated differently because developed countries, on a per capita basis, often produce more greenhouse gases than developing countries. For instance, on a per capita basis, the United States in 2015 produced more than double the carbon dioxide emissions of China — and eight times more than India."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/

Read up chip

---

The results/goals are not binding. The $3B is. That's kind of the issue here

---

The 3b is only binding in the word is bond kind of way. US voluntarily decided to pledge 3b by 2020. There is no piece of paper that says unless US pays 3b the whole deal is off.

Only way developed countries can tell developing countries not to do what we do/did is by controlling the funding. Small part of it will come in the form of grants/aid. For various reasons both sides are happy to paint this whole deal as a form of charity. It is the type of charity where a lot wealthy people become wealthier mostly at the expense of companies that are unable/unwilling to get away from carbon based energy production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

The results/goals are not binding. The $3B is. That's kind of the issue here

---

The 3b is only binding in the word is bond kind of way. US voluntarily decided to pledge 3b by 2020. There is no piece of paper that says unless US pays 3b the whole deal is off.

Only way developed countries can tell developing countries not to do what we do/did is by controlling the funding. Small part of it will come in the form of grants/aid. For various reasons both sides are happy to paint this whole deal as a form of charity. It is the type of charity where a lot wealthy people become wealthier mostly at the expense of companies that are unable/unwilling to get away from carbon based energy production.

---

But it's still binding. If we are in the deal we are making the payment. In some ways you have to admire Trump for that. He could have stayed in knowing it's not binding and then said "fuck off" when it Came time to sign the check.

If this is such a deal breaker and if the rest of the world is really this vested then why doesn't a basket of countries come together and meet us half way on the 3B? China/India/Europe have plenty of reasons to help fund this. Why not Come to the table with the USA as equal partners.

Now if that happens and trump says no..... it's a different set of circumstances. But to date all I'm hearing it rhetoric by world leaders that aren't getting a check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

The 3b is only binding in the word is bond kind of way. US voluntarily decided to pledge 3b by 2020. There is no piece of paper that says unless US pays 3b the whole deal is off.

Only way developed countries can tell developing countries not to do what we do/did is by controlling the funding. Small part of it will come in the form of grants/aid. For various reasons both sides are happy to paint this whole deal as a form of charity. It is the type of charity where a lot wealthy people become wealthier mostly at the expense of companies that are unable/unwilling to get away from carbon based energy production.

---

But it's still binding. If we are in the deal we are making the payment. In some ways you have to admire Trump for that. He could have stayed in knowing it's not binding and then said "fuck off" when it Came time to sign the check.

If this is such a deal breaker and if the rest of the world is really this vested then why doesn't a basket of countries come together and meet us half way on the 3B? China/India/Europe have plenty of reasons to help fund this. Why not Come to the table with the USA as equal partners.

Now if that happens and trump says no..... it's a different set of circumstances. But to date all I'm hearing it rhetoric by world leaders that aren't getting a check.

---

No.
Reading is great, why not try comprehension?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

But it's still binding. If we are in the deal we are making the payment. In some ways you have to admire Trump for that. He could have stayed in knowing it's not binding and then said "fuck off" when it Came time to sign the check.

If this is such a deal breaker and if the rest of the world is really this vested then why doesn't a basket of countries come together and meet us half way on the 3B? China/India/Europe have plenty of reasons to help fund this. Why not Come to the table with the USA as equal partners.

Now if that happens and trump says no..... it's a different set of circumstances. But to date all I'm hearing it rhetoric by world leaders that aren't getting a check.

---

No.
Reading is great, why not try comprehension?

---

Are you trying to make the case that the USA would not pay out the remaining 2,000,000,000 if we stayed in the deal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

No.
Reading is great, why not try comprehension?

---

Are you trying to make the case that the USA would not pay out the remaining 2,000,000,000 if we stayed in the deal?

---

With Trump as president....we probably wouldn't pay it. It would look bad, but not nearly as bad as completely leaving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

USA isn't paying 100% and most $ USA are "paying" consists of loans and investments (just like every other developed country). If all it took was 3b to pay for the whole thing, literally no one would care that USA decided to bail.

The Paris Agreement was just about getting everyone to sit at the same table. Every part of it is voluntary. A better deal doesn't exist.

The developed countries are "paying" for developing countries to not choose the same route in industrialization than we did. It's financed mostly by private financial institutions and funds.

---

If this were at all true it would change my opinion.

Have proof? I'm not being a smart ass. Everything I've read (and I've said since the start of this thread for someone to tell me what I have read is wrong) says the USA is in for $3B cold hard cash, rest of the world zero.

---

damn, I actually had some respect for Daly,
I didn't know he dabbled in conspiracy theories,


196 countries, and we had to pay the whole thing, oh yeah that doesn't sound like fake news, Shouldn't you be the one having proof?
is Hillary child molesting again, too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

No.
Reading is great, why not try comprehension?

---

Are you trying to make the case that the USA would not pay out the remaining 2,000,000,000 if we stayed in the deal?

---

Nope. Just saying Obama signed over a check that you are stuck with and default would mean a second Pearl Harbour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyG_415

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

If this were at all true it would change my opinion.

Have proof? I'm not being a smart ass. Everything I've read (and I've said since the start of this thread for someone to tell me what I have read is wrong) says the USA is in for $3B cold hard cash, rest of the world zero.

---

damn, I actually had some respect for Daly,
I didn't know he dabbled in conspiracy theories,


196 countries, and we had to pay the whole thing, oh yeah that doesn't sound like fake news, Shouldn't you be the one having proof?
is Hillary child molesting again, too?

---

Up to 10 pages mostly on this topic and I've been asking for someone to show me where the rest of the world is chipping in here.

So far I got 3B USA, rest of the world zero.

I've looked. I've found nothing. Nobody in here has found anything.

Show me I'm wrong. I want to be wrong..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyG_415

damn, I actually had some respect for Daly,
I didn't know he dabbled in conspiracy theories,


196 countries, and we had to pay the whole thing, oh yeah that doesn't sound like fake news, Shouldn't you be the one having proof?
is Hillary child molesting again, too?

---

Up to 10 pages mostly on this topic and I've been asking for someone to show me where the rest of the world is chipping in here.

So far I got 3B USA, rest of the world zero.

I've looked. I've found nothing. Nobody in here has found anything.

Show me I'm wrong. I want to be wrong..

---

it's funny but sad that you say you've got "3B USA, rest of the world zero" and you're asking for people to refute that, when you, yourself, haven't provided the source of your claims unless i missed it. where did you get your info?

regardless:

Quote:

---

It is incorrect that other countries have not contributed to the Green Climate Fund. In fact, 43 governments have pledged money to the fund, including nine developing countries. The countries have pledged to pay $10.13 billion collectively, and the U.S. share is $3 billion. As of May 2017, the United States has contributed $1 billion of the $3 billion it pledged.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a12b3ff1283d

https://www.greenclimate.fund/docume...c-5566ed6afd19

now that we have your "proof", can you humor me and post the source of your $3 billion to $0 claim? alex jones? facebook? something else embarrassing trump supporters rely on?

In fairness, you still have not actually quoted anything to indicate any other country had paid a cent. All you have quoted is that the US has paid in $1B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Up to 10 pages mostly on this topic and I've been asking for someone to show me where the rest of the world is chipping in here.

So far I got 3B USA, rest of the world zero.

I've looked. I've found nothing. Nobody in here has found anything.

Show me I'm wrong. I want to be wrong..

---

it's funny but sad that you say you've got "3B USA, rest of the world zero" and you're asking for people to refute that, when you, yourself, haven't provided the source of your claims unless i missed it. where did you get your info?

regardless:

Quote:

---

It is incorrect that other countries have not contributed to the Green Climate Fund. In fact, 43 governments have pledged money to the fund, including nine developing countries. The countries have pledged to pay $10.13 billion collectively, and the U.S. share is $3 billion. As of May 2017, the United States has contributed $1 billion of the $3 billion it pledged.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a12b3ff1283d

https://www.greenclimate.fund/docume...c-5566ed6afd19

now that we have your "proof", can you humor me and post the source of your $3 billion to $0 claim? alex jones? facebook? something else embarrassing trump supporters rely on?

---

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mate-fund.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

In fairness, you still have not actually quoted anything to indicate any other country had paid a cent. All you have quoted is that the US has paid in $1B.

---

i'm going to go out on a limb and say you didn't read the green climate link i posted (and gimmick did too). the column that says amount actually "disbursed" seems to indicate that those funds were actually disbursed

I didn't press on any link. I just read the quotes you presented, and based on the quotes I can see that the US has paid $1B to the fund so far and that is it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

it's funny but sad that you say you've got "3B USA, rest of the world zero" and you're asking for people to refute that, when you, yourself, haven't provided the source of your claims unless i missed it. where did you get your info?

regardless:

Quote:

---

It is incorrect that other countries have not contributed to the Green Climate Fund. In fact, 43 governments have pledged money to the fund, including nine developing countries. The countries have pledged to pay $10.13 billion collectively, and the U.S. share is $3 billion. As of May 2017, the United States has contributed $1 billion of the $3 billion it pledged.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a12b3ff1283d

https://www.greenclimate.fund/docume...c-5566ed6afd19

now that we have your "proof", can you humor me and post the source of your $3 billion to $0 claim? alex jones? facebook? something else embarrassing trump supporters rely on?

---

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mate-fund.html

---

not only that, but keep in mind that the US alone, has contributed about 1/3 of the total excess carbon dioxide in the world

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...deal.html?_r=0

This is the part of the thread where someone in a red baseball hat calls blake a faggot nerd then beans him with a can of oil which breaks open and blinds him and then he staggers towards a freeway and a cop shoots him because he looks black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

it's funny but sad that you say you've got "3B USA, rest of the world zero" and you're asking for people to refute that, when you, yourself, haven't provided the source of your claims unless i missed it. where did you get your info?

regardless:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a12b3ff1283d

https://www.greenclimate.fund/docume...c-5566ed6afd19

now that we have your "proof", can you humor me and post the source of your $3 billion to $0 claim? alex jones? facebook? something else embarrassing trump supporters rely on?

---

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mate-fund.html

---

not only that, but keep in mind that the US alone, has contributed about 1/3 of the total excess carbon dioxide in the world

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...deal.html?_r=0

---

So how does writing a check do anything but rob the taxpayers and enrich someone else? How is this problem solved by throwing money at it and why is ** not ** throwing money at a problem === there is no problem? You don't have to throw money at a problem for the problem to be real.

I mean seriously, wtf?

I remember I looked at the actual numbers once, and given the % of the time young black males are involved in violent crimes, especially shooting police officers, they are actually under-targeted by police.

If you actually break it down, it appears non-blacks are being unfairly targeted by police, given respective total populations and % of crimes committed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

I remember I looked at the actual numbers once, and given the % of the time young black males are involved in violent crimes, especially shooting police officers, they are actually under-targeted by police.

If you actually break it down, it appears non-blacks are being unfairly targeted by police, given respective total populations and % of crimes committed.

---

unfairly non-targeted would do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mate-fund.html

---

not only that, but keep in mind that the US alone, has contributed about 1/3 of the total excess carbon dioxide in the world

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...deal.html?_r=0

---

So how does writing a check do anything but rob the taxpayers and enrich someone else? How is this problem solved by throwing money at it and why is ** not ** throwing money at a problem === there is no problem? You don't have to throw money at a problem for the problem to be real.

I mean seriously, wtf?

---

i think the funds are supposed to be used to help developing countries switch to cleaner fuels or something, but not really sure.

aren't the funds the minor part of this though? the more important aspect of this deal was that the US committed (along with all other countries except syria and nicaragua) to implement a plan to reduce its carbon emissions.

i get the argument that the enhanced environmental regulations might hurt the US economy, which may be true (i have no idea), but let's be honest, the outrage over $3,000,000,000 is a joke. $3 billion is virtually a rounding error for the US.

for god's sake, trump's idiotic wall would cost over $20,000,000,000, yet somehow trump fans don't mind that

the reason trump left paris accord is because there is exactly one (1) thing hes capable of accomplishing as president; drill baby drill.



thats it.


this isnt about $2bn, or climate denial, or partisan politics.

he cant be in the accord while he takes the shackles off the coal/oil industry.

he thinks that if he jump starts the fossil fuel market, it will somehow be like opening up the choke on an engine and america will somehow be great again because jerbs or something, and in doing so he can use that commerce to legitimize his tax cuts for the wealthy.

obviously anyone who graduated high school knows that's laughable but here we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

it's funny but sad that you say you've got "3B USA, rest of the world zero" and you're asking for people to refute that, when you, yourself, haven't provided the source of your claims unless i missed it. where did you get your info?

regardless:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a12b3ff1283d

https://www.greenclimate.fund/docume...c-5566ed6afd19

now that we have your "proof", can you humor me and post the source of your $3 billion to $0 claim? alex jones? facebook? something else embarrassing trump supporters rely on?

---

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mate-fund.html

---

not only that, but keep in mind that the US alone, has contributed about 1/3 of the total excess carbon dioxide in the world

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...deal.html?_r=0

---

Trumptards so ill informed as per. It's what makes it so galling when they talk about picking up the tab for the whole world and other such nonsense.

You can't blame the US for getting rich on the back of fossil fuels. Every country has or would do the same.

But the absolute bare faced cheek to be the only country on earth to walk away (again) after contributing the most pollution by far into our atmosphere. Well that's just unforgivable.

Trump's speech yesterday will never be forgotten either.

Is any of this really a surprise? I barely pay any attention to politics, but my very rudementary understanding of Trump's politics is that most of the "controversial" stuff he has done so far (repealing the Climate thing, health care bill, all the Nepotism) is pretty much what was expected. So why does him doing exactly what we expected him to do causing so much outrage?

I really don't get it.

I mean, of course it is a complete clown show. But what do you expect? We elected Donald Trump as president of the United States. We pretty much just have to suck it up the next 4/8 years and make the best of it. But at this point, I dont really see the point of being so indignant and outraged at every little thing.

That being said, Anderson Cooper was 100% correct. The verbal gymnastics conservatives will go through to defend the stuff Trump does/says truly is a sight to behold. Almost as good as when Bill Clinton saying "it depends upon what the meaning of the word is is"

In my opinion the election of President Trump is a complete refutation of the SJW polical correctedness culture and complete pandering to the rich that the media has been trying to shove down our throats, and democratic party of Obama and Hillary pandered to, and not much else.

Unfortunately, it appears the mainstream media and the left in general instead of realizing how America is sick of the political correct nonsense and the reason we elected Trump in the first place, is instead doubling down on it, meaning we are going to go through the exact same thing in 4 years, if not Trump than some other demagogue that positions himself as standing up to the nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

the reason trump left paris accord is because there is exactly one (1) thing hes capable of accomplishing as president; drill baby drill.



thats it.


this isnt about $2bn, or climate denial, or partisan politics.

he cant be in the accord while he takes the shackles off the coal/oil industry.

he thinks that if he jump starts the fossil fuel market, it will somehow be like opening up the choke on an engine and america will somehow be great again because jerbs or something, and in doing so he can use that commerce to legitimize his tax cuts for the wealthy.

obviously anyone who graduated high school knows that's laughable but here we are.

---

guy's been schooled on pulling out though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Up to 10 pages mostly on this topic and I've been asking for someone to show me where the rest of the world is chipping in here.

So far I got 3B USA, rest of the world zero.

I've looked. I've found nothing. Nobody in here has found anything.

Show me I'm wrong. I want to be wrong..

---

it's funny but sad that you say you've got "3B USA, rest of the world zero" and you're asking for people to refute that, when you, yourself, haven't provided the source of your claims unless i missed it. where did you get your info?

regardless:

Quote:

---

It is incorrect that other countries have not contributed to the Green Climate Fund. In fact, 43 governments have pledged money to the fund, including nine developing countries. The countries have pledged to pay $10.13 billion collectively, and the U.S. share is $3 billion. As of May 2017, the United States has contributed $1 billion of the $3 billion it pledged.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a12b3ff1283d

https://www.greenclimate.fund/docume...c-5566ed6afd19

now that we have your "proof", can you humor me and post the source of your $3 billion to $0 claim? alex jones? facebook? something else embarrassing trump supporters rely on?

---

Thank you. This is exactly what I've been looking for. England and Sweden have also paid out almost a $1B combined. I'm willing to say us pulling out is bullshit now.

The least surprising thing is that Trump did not consult any scientists before making the decision. We're in the Age of Ignorance.