For those who demean those that disagree with your position

[davegolf]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

A Gallup poll found in January 2017 that 25% of the population was liberal. Do you really expose that 75% who disagree with liberal policies are idiots and delusional and you are the only ones who have it right and all the answers. Does not majority have some place in our political thinking without having to shoot them or show them no respect for a different political belief. It seems to me we have forgotten that our democracy has made us great. That our veterans and first responders should be honored and not demeaned and that America is a proud melting pot of all beliefs which should be respected. Some will be happy this is my last post as I cannot understand all the anger from the left and disrespect for the beliefs of others. I cannot believe on a "Hoosier" blog we have such anger and disrespect for many of our graduates just because they have differing opinions. Could say a lot more but TheHoosier.com is now deleted. God Bless America!!

 

[Univee2]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

A Gallup poll found in January 2017 that 25% of the population was liberal. Do you really expose that 75% who disagree with liberal policies are idiots and delusional and you are the only ones who have it right and all the answers. Does not majority have some place in our political thinking without having to shoot them or show them no respect for a different political belief. It seems to me we have forgotten that our democracy has made us great. That our veterans and first responders should be honored and not demeaned and that America is a proud melting pot of all beliefs which should be respected. Some will be happy this is my last post as I cannot understand all the anger from the left and disrespect for the beliefs of others. I cannot believe on a "Hoosier" blog we have such anger and disrespect for many of our graduates just because they have differing opinions. Could say a lot more but TheHoosier.com is now deleted. God Bless America!!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. And, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

$50.00 to a Three Musketeers bar you'll be back within a year.

 

[Circlejoe]

I forget, do we vote for poster of the year on this site?

 

[T.M.P.]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

A Gallup poll found in January 2017 that 25% of the population was liberal. Do you really expose that 75% who disagree with liberal policies are idiots

*suppose.

25% identified as liberal. That's true. 36% conservative. You didn't mention that. Why? Which means 39% either identify with neither, or are moderates. But that does not mean 75% disagree. Did you go to Trump University for your education?

Anyways. I would assume that until you show an ability for fundamental logic and understanding of elementary level math, the liberals will probably make fun of you, and rightfully so. And, fwiw, that post just isn't helping.

 

[UncleMark]

I forget, do we vote for poster of the year on this site?

Vote for Dave in abstentia.

 

[Sope Creek]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

A Gallup poll found in January 2017 that 25% of the population was liberal. Do you really expose that 75% who disagree with liberal policies are idiots and delusional and you are the only ones who have it right and all the answers. Does not majority have some place in our political thinking without having to shoot them or show them no respect for a different political belief. It seems to me we have forgotten that our democracy has made us great. That our veterans and first responders should be honored and not demeaned and that America is a proud melting pot of all beliefs which should be respected. Some will be happy this is my last post as I cannot understand all the anger from the left and disrespect for the beliefs of others. I cannot believe on a "Hoosier" blog we have such anger and disrespect for many of our graduates just because they have differing opinions. Could say a lot more but TheHoosier.com is now deleted. God Bless America!!

65,853,516 > 62,984,825.

48.2% > 46.1%.

You need to develop some healthy respect for those who have differing political views. Until you do, you can expect to be met with disrespect, and worse.

 

[zeke4ahs]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

A Gallup poll found in January 2017 that 25% of the population was liberal. Do you really expose that 75% who disagree with liberal policies are idiots and delusional and you are the only ones who have it right and all the answers. Does not majority have some place in our political thinking without having to shoot them or show them no respect for a different political belief. It seems to me we have forgotten that our democracy has made us great. That our veterans and first responders should be honored and not demeaned and that America is a proud melting pot of all beliefs which should be respected. Some will be happy this is my last post as I cannot understand all the anger from the left and disrespect for the beliefs of others. I cannot believe on a "Hoosier" blog we have such anger and disrespect for many of our graduates just because they have differing opinions. Could say a lot more but TheHoosier.com is now deleted. God Bless America!!

I don't by any means think conservatives are delusional or idiots. I do think people that voted for Trump are.

 

[twenty02]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

A Gallup poll found in January 2017 that 25% of the population was liberal. Do you really expose that 75% who disagree with liberal policies are idiots and delusional and you are the only ones who have it right and all the answers. Does not majority have some place in our political thinking without having to shoot them or show them no respect for a different political belief. It seems to me we have forgotten that our democracy has made us great. That our veterans and first responders should be honored and not demeaned and that America is a proud melting pot of all beliefs which should be respected. Some will be happy this is my last post as I cannot understand all the anger from the left and disrespect for the beliefs of others. I cannot believe on a "Hoosier" blog we have such anger and disrespect for many of our graduates just because they have differing opinions. Could say a lot more but TheHoosier.com is now deleted. God Bless America!!

What a terrible loss. Good luck in your future endeavors Dave. Thank God teachers like you are there for our next generation of legal scholars. Your deep insight will be sorely missed.

 

[sglowrider]

What a terrible loss. Good luck in your future endeavors Dave. Thank God teachers like you are there for our next generation of legal scholars. Your deep insight will be sorely missed.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

A Gallup poll found in January 2017 that 25% of the population was liberal. Do you really expose that 75% who disagree with liberal policies are idiots and delusional and you are the only ones who have it right and all the answers. Does not majority have some place in our political thinking without having to shoot them or show them no respect for a different political belief. It seems to me we have forgotten that our democracy has made us great. That our veterans and first responders should be honored and not demeaned and that America is a proud melting pot of all beliefs which should be respected. Some will be happy this is my last post as I cannot understand all the anger from the left and disrespect for the beliefs of others. I cannot believe on a "Hoosier" blog we have such anger and disrespect for many of our graduates just because they have differing opinions. Could say a lot more but TheHoosier.com is now deleted. God Bless America!!

what planet have you been on the last 30 yrs Dave?

for literally decades we've had right wing hate radio blasting hour after hour 365 days a year that does nothing but broadcast all day everyday on multiple spots on the dial, now AM and FM, with no other message than democrats are the devil, evil, and who are only out to ruin freedom and destroy the country.

that narrow message is the sole message, all day every day.

now the left decided to spit back, and you're filled with false indignation that conservatives no longer hold a monopoly on hate.

but just so you'll know, the problem isn't conservatives and liberals. it's the parties and the media.

conservatives and liberals all have many views on many partisan issues. some times on some things they disagree strongly with each other, some times agree strongly, and everything in between.

the parties have only one view on all partisan issues, and it's always the opposite of the other party.

if the gangs themselves were to be dissolved, the members of each would get along much better with the members of the other.

if every political tv and radio program had to be represented at all times by a conservative and a liberal, as opposed to just one or the other, that would help even more.

 

[Squarepants]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

A Gallup poll found in January 2017 that 25% of the population was liberal. Do you really expose that 75% who disagree with liberal policies are idiots and delusional and you are the only ones who have it right and all the answers. Does not majority have some place in our political thinking without having to shoot them or show them no respect for a different political belief. It seems to me we have forgotten that our democracy has made us great. That our veterans and first responders should be honored and not demeaned and that America is a proud melting pot of all beliefs which should be respected. Some will be happy this is my last post as I cannot understand all the anger from the left and disrespect for the beliefs of others. I cannot believe on a "Hoosier" blog we have such anger and disrespect for many of our graduates just because they have differing opinions. Could say a lot more but TheHoosier.com is now deleted. God Bless America!!

 

[stollcpa]

I don't by any means think conservatives are delusional or idiots. I do think people that voted for Trump are.

By your definition there's a lot of idiots in this Country. What's wrong with just saying you disagree with their vote?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't by any means think conservatives are delusional or idiots. I do think people that voted for Trump are.

I don't think liberals are delusional or idiots. But I think those who deny Trump has some agenda items that must be accomplished are.

 

[iu_a_att]

I don't think liberals are delusional or idiots. But I think those who deny Trump has some agenda items that must be accomplished are.

Haven't seen anyone deny that Trump has an agenda. I don't doubt that Trump's supporters and enablers also have agendas. I do see that there are, or ought to be, critical differences between Trump's agenda and those of his American supporters. My advice to Trump's supporters and enablers is to impeach Trump and replace him with Pence. Pence can pilot the ship of state to the place his supporters hope to arrive without the catastrophic risks Trump presents to the country. They should replace Trump because whatever policy differences liberals and conservatives might have, we all love this country and its democratic institutions. The continuing support for Trump is an unnecessary betrayal of our core common values.

 

[Rockfish1]

Haven't seen anyone deny that Trump has an agenda. I don't doubt that Trump's supporters and enablers also have agendas. I do see that there are, or ought to be, critical differences between Trump's agenda and those of his American supporters. My advice to Trump's supporters and enablers is to impeach Trump and replace him with Pence. Pence can pilot the ship of state to the place his supporters hope to arrive without the catastrophic risks Trump presents to the country. They should replace Trump because whatever policy differences liberals and conservatives might have, we all love this country and its democratic institutions. The continuing support for Trump is an unnecessary betrayal of our core common values.

I doubt that Trump has any agenda other than himself. He is after all a vast ignramus on all the subjects he ostensibly addresses.

 

[DougS]

Does anyone on this board know Dave, personally? I am asking because, several years ago when I was moderating this board, he told me (and has posted about it since) that he was dying from cancer. That was quite a while ago and, perhaps I am late to this party, but I'm wondering if we (I) are/am being played.

 

[iu_a_att]

I doubt that Trump has any agenda other than himself. He is after all a vast ignramus on all the subjects he ostensibly addresses.

Trump's agenda is his own glorification and enrichment. I think he sees deals that he can make on health care, immigration, energy and environment and Russia for example that will serve his agenda. Trump's supporters and enablers are the beneficiaries of those deals and so support that agenda. Trump's destruction of the rule of law, of U.S. sovereignty and international reputation to include a few put Trump at odds with most of his American supporters and enablers. They hope they can contain the damage of Trump on those dimensions while achieving their policy objectives. Those of us on the left should tell them that they don't need risk our common values in order for them to achieve their partisan goals. Rather, they put at risk their partisan goals as well as our common values by continuing to support Trump.

 

[toastedbread]

I doubt that Trump has any agenda other than himself. He is after all a vast ignramus on all the subjects he ostensibly addresses.

bit broader than that. He's a vindictive pos. See Cuba, climate deal. None of that benefits himself personally, but is purely hate based. It's also apparent that he enjoys conflict for the sake of conflict. Every act seems to be the most destructive and extreme possible. It speaks to someone who isn't completely sane.

 

[toastedbread]

Does anyone on this board know Dave, personally? I am asking because, several years ago when I was moderating this board, he told me (and has posted about it since) that he was dying from cancer. That was quite a while ago and, perhaps I am late to this party, but I'm wondering if we (I) are/am being played.

you think someone else is posting under his screen name? Or that he was lying about the cancer? My guess is he had cancer, but wasn't quite dying.

 

[toastedbread]

Trump at odds with most of his American supporters and enablers.

I haven't seen any evidence of that. If anything its the contrary. That's wishful thinking, which sadly is not true.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Haven't seen anyone deny that Trump has an agenda. I don't doubt that Trump's supporters and enablers also have agendas. I do see that there are, or ought to be, critical differences between Trump's agenda and those of his American supporters. My advice to Trump's supporters and enablers is to impeach Trump and replace him with Pence. Pence can pilot the ship of state to the place his supporters hope to arrive without the catastrophic risks Trump presents to the country. They should replace Trump because whatever policy differences liberals and conservatives might have, we all love this country and its democratic institutions. The continuing support for Trump is an unnecessary betrayal of our core common values.

It's still early, of course. But, honestly, this conservative been pleasantly surprised by what I've seen thus far (I'm talking policy here, not the daily sideshow). As I long said, Trump was my last choice among the GOP candidates -- and my primary reason was that he pretty clearly wasn't (and isn't) a conservative. Where he falls ideologically depends on which day you ask him, I gather.

But I've been reviewing some of the details of the work being done on regulation reduction, and it all sounds pretty good to me. He greenlighted the Keystone pipeline, got us out from underneath the Paris sham, seems to be making progress on tossing Obamacare, has nominated some fine judges, and has made good strides on immigration enforcement. He's also proposed some significant spending reductions -- although they aren't the kind we really ought to be looking for.

I've never been the world's biggest Mike Pence fan. In fact, I was having a discussion the other day with a friend who is Exec. Director of a fairly big industry group about Holcomb's first session. We both agreed that he's done well to date -- and both said about the same time that Holcomb seems to have studied more at Daniels' feet than at Pence's (and that this was a good thing).

That said, I do think that Pence is, basically and unlike Trump, an orthodox conservative. But I'm very skeptical he'd be riding the policy horse as hard as Trump has been -- let alone flying the bird at the proverbial peanut gallery.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

bit broader than that. He's a vindictive pos. See Cuba, climate deal. None of that benefits himself personally, but is purely hate based. It's also apparent that he enjoys conflict for the sake of conflict. Every act seems to be the most destructive and extreme possible. It speaks to someone who isn't completely sane.

Lots of policymakers opposed our participation in Paris. That's precisely why Obama never sought ratification in the Senate. He knew he'd never have gotten it.

So what's ultimately the difference between opposing becoming signatory to such a proposed accord and pulling out of it at some later date?

Besides, he said he'd be willing to revisit it -- so long as the accord was a bit more of an even playing field. Understandably, the initial reaction was to scoff at the suggestion. But, if it's really that important to the ongoing health of the planet, seems to me that other world leaders would acquiesce.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's still early, of course. But, honestly, this conservative been pleasantly surprised by what I've seen thus far (I'm talking policy here, not the daily sideshow). As I long said, Trump was my last choice among the GOP candidates -- and my primary reason was that he pretty clearly wasn't (and isn't) a conservative. Where he falls ideologically depends on which day you ask him, I gather.

But I've been reviewing some of the details of the work being done on regulation reduction, and it all sounds pretty good to me. He greenlighted the Keystone pipeline, got us out from underneath the Paris sham, seems to be making progress on tossing Obamacare, has nominated some fine judges, and has made good strides on immigration enforcement. He's also proposed some significant spending reductions -- although they aren't the kind we really ought to be looking for.

I've never been the world's biggest Mike Pence fan. In fact, I was having a discussion the other day with a friend who is Exec. Director of a fairly big industry group about Holcomb's first session. We both agreed that he's done well to date -- and both said about the same time that Holcomb seems to have studied more at Daniels' feet than at Pence's (and that this was a good thing).

That said, I do think that Pence is, basically and unlike Trump, an orthodox conservative. But I'm very skeptical he'd be riding the policy horse as hard as Trump has been -- let alone flying the bird at the proverbial peanut gallery.

I will say, though, that I'm not at all in favor of Trump reversing any of the thaw Obama had with Cuba. That was one of the things BHO did which I wholeheartedly agreed with. Our Cuba policy was an anachronistic vestige of the Cold War and there was and is nothing at all to be gained from keeping it that way.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Besides, he said he'd be willing to revisit it -- so long as the accord was a bit more of an even playing field. Understandably, the initial reaction was to scoff at the suggestion. But, if it's really that important to the ongoing health of the planet, seems to me that other world leaders would acquiesce.

Why would they acquiesce? I am not sure where the US is getting screwed. The amounts we are paying seem high, but we are something like 8th in amount paid per capita and like 32nd by GDP (those numbers might be slightly off, going off memory). People use coal as an example, the accord doesn't mention coal at all. If sequestration works, we can burn all the coal we dream of and meet Paris. Germany, which pays in more than we do by either measure, probably isn't too interested in giving the US a break. (using Germany as an example, there are other countries paying more by either or both measures).

 

[iu_a_att]

bit broader than that. He's a vindictive pos. See Cuba, climate deal. None of that benefits himself personally, but is purely hate based. It's also apparent that he enjoys conflict for the sake of conflict. Every act seems to be the most destructive and extreme possible. It speaks to someone who isn't completely sane.

For Trump's hard core supporters Trump's hate is not a vice but a virtue as it is directed at liberals, Democrats and those they see as "other". For them Trump is delivering and promises to deliver what they feel is well-deserved retribution for decades of disrespect. But vengeance thy name is hatred. That hatred is the really scary part of the Trump deal. That is the one part that gets lost if Trump is replaced by Pence. Perhaps that is the biggest reason the GOP cannot dump Trump...because they risk having that hate turned on them. But they shouldn't doubt he will turn the hate on them without hesitation. Comey and Mueller are just the most recent two Republicans to feel it.

 

[twenty02]

It's still early, of course. But, honestly, this conservative been pleasantly surprised by what I've seen thus far (I'm talking policy here, not the daily sideshow). As I long said, Trump was my last choice among the GOP candidates -- and my primary reason was that he pretty clearly wasn't (and isn't) a conservative. Where he falls ideologically depends on which day you ask him, I gather.

But I've been reviewing some of the details of the work being done on regulation reduction, and it all sounds pretty good to me. He greenlighted the Keystone pipeline, got us out from underneath the Paris sham, seems to be making progress on tossing Obamacare, has nominated some fine judges, and has made good strides on immigration enforcement. He's also proposed some significant spending reductions -- although they aren't the kind we really ought to be looking for.

I've never been the world's biggest Mike Pence fan. In fact, I was having a discussion the other day with a friend who is Exec. Director of a fairly big industry group about Holcomb's first session. We both agreed that he's done well to date -- and both said about the same time that Holcomb seems to have studied more at Daniels' feet than at Pence's (and that this was a good thing).

That said, I do think that Pence is, basically and unlike Trump, an orthodox conservative. But I'm very skeptical he'd be riding the policy horse as hard as Trump has been -- let alone flying the bird at the proverbial peanut gallery.

Why was Paris a "sham"? Tillerson doesn't agree with that position.

I believe it was a massive geopolitical blunder that greatly reduces our credibility in future discussions. The benchmarks to be met were voluntary, anyway. There was no arbitrary penalty for not meeting them.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Why would they acquiesce?

Well, according to them, the future of the planet depends on this (or something like it.) President Obama himself said that it “represents the best chance we have to save the one planet we’ve got.” If I felt that way, I'm pretty sure I'd be anxious to get back to the bargaining table. I sure wouldn't say "Well, screw you then!" I mean, that might be my first reaction. But the emotion would be pretty ephemeral.

I am not sure where the US is getting screwed. The amounts we are paying seem high, but we are something like 8th in amount paid per capita and like 32nd by GDP (those numbers might be slightly off, going off memory). People use coal as an example, the accord doesn't mention coal at all. If sequestration works, we can burn all the coal we dream of and meet Paris. Germany, which pays in more than we do by either measure, probably isn't too interested in giving the US a break. (using Germany as an example, there are other countries paying more by either or both measures).

Well, in addition to the GCF scam -- and that's precisely what it is -- I strongly object to relying on per capita measures on this. Energy consumption is far more a function of economic output than it is population. Using per capita measures is an obvious sop to both China and India -- because they're the two most populous countries on earth.

Isn't it revealing to you -- it certainly was to me -- that a day after Trump's announcement the German Automaker association appealed to Germany and the EU to adopt policies that enabled them to remain globally competitive?

Ultimately, for me, I just don't think we need to be subordinating ourselves in this way on such critical matters. We're the ones with the biggest target on our backs. We've already trimmed emissions about halfway to our 2025 pledge -- and there's nothing wrong with that...so long as we can do so without constraining growth. But to needlessly handcuff ourselves? Nah.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, according to them, the future of the planet depends on this (or something like it.) President Obama himself said that it “represents the best chance we have to save the one planet we’ve got.” If I felt that way, I'm pretty sure I'd be anxious to get back to the bargaining table. I sure wouldn't say "Well, screw you then!" I mean, that might be my first reaction. But the emotion would be pretty ephemeral.

Suppose we lived near a lake, and we all paid into a fund to keep the dam repaired. Suppose at some point I decided I was paying too much and demanded to renegotiate to where I paid much less, even though you already paid more. How would that go for you? And if I am successful, I wonder how many other neighbors would demand to pay less? Maybe you would be willing to fund 100% of the cost, but I am somewhat skeptical.

The easier solution for the Paris signatories is to sign a preferred trade pact requiring membership in the Paris accords.I don't think they would be willing to do that either, but I know the conservatives on this board love the stick more than the carrot and would be looking to something like that if the situations were reversed (Germany demanding to renegotiate).

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Suppose we lived near a lake, and we all paid into a fund to keep the dam repaired. Suppose at some point I decided I was paying too much and demanded to renegotiate to where I paid much less, even though you already paid more. How would that go for you? And if I am successful, I wonder how many other neighbors would demand to pay less? Maybe you would be willing to fund 100% of the cost, but I am somewhat skeptical.

The easier solution for the Paris signatories is to sign a preferred trade pact requiring membership in the Paris accords.I don't think they would be willing to do that either, but I know the conservatives on this board love the stick more than the carrot and would be looking to something like that if the situations were reversed (Germany demanding to renegotiate).

But the key thought there is that they won't be willing to do anything that would disrupt trade with the US. We're still the biggest single market in the world.

We're not everybody else, Marvin. I don't know if such an effort would prove successful. But of course they should take up Trump's offer to renegotiate it....if for no other reason than to call his bluff. If they don't, then they're faced with precisely the sort of disparity situation that caused the big German automakers to cry foul in the wake of the US withdrawal. They weren't griping to us (other than an understandable gratuitous swipe in the introductory sentence), they were appealing to Germany and the EU to do something which doesn't leave them globally disadvantaged.

Without us in there, I'm not sure the accord can endure for very long.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The benchmarks to be met were voluntary, anyway. There was no arbitrary penalty for not meeting them.

I realize that. But that being the case, what's the problem with determining our own emissions goals unilaterally? And, if they're voluntary, then why are European industries fretting the prospect of competing with somebody who isn't party to it? Can't they just lean on their governments to allow them miss their contribution targets, since there are no consequences for doing so?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Without us in there, I'm not sure the accord can endure for very long.

I am not sure it can either, nor do I think the accord can last if it starts with "The US gets to do whatever it wants, when it wants, how it wants". I doubt SERIOUSLY we are the only ones with complaints. These type of compacts require give and take. If the US goes in and says "we demand our way or the highway" I am not sure why other countries would want to belong. If you were German, a country paying more per GDP than America, would you be excited that America reduces its amount even more?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I am not sure it can either, nor do I think the accord can last if it starts with "The US gets to do whatever it wants, when it wants, how it wants". I doubt SERIOUSLY we are the only ones with complaints. These type of compacts require give and take. If the US goes in and says "we demand our way or the highway" I am not sure why other countries would want to belong. If you were German, a country paying more per GDP than America, would you be excited that America reduces its amount even more?

Well, if renegotiations break down, we're really in no different situation than we're presently in, right?

And, better yet, Trump might be able to do what Obama didn't: secure formal ratification.

 

[twenty02]

But the key thought there is that they won't be willing to do anything that would disrupt trade with the US. We're still the biggest single market in the world.

We're not everybody else, Marvin. I don't know if such an effort would prove successful. But of course they should take up Trump's offer to renegotiate it....if for no other reason than to call his bluff. If they don't, then they're faced with precisely the sort of disparity situation that caused the big German automakers to cry foul in the wake of the US withdrawal. They weren't griping to us (other than an understandable gratuitous swipe in the introductory sentence), they were appealing to Germany and the EU to do something which doesn't leave them globally disadvantaged.

Without us in there, I'm not sure the accord can endure for very long.

You thinking Trump is going to seriously attempt to renegotiate anything on this topic? That's the real sham.

 

[twenty02]

I realize that. But that being the case, what's the problem with determining our own emissions goals unilaterally? And, if they're voluntary, then why are European industries fretting the prospect of competing with somebody who isn't party to it? Can't they just lean on their governments to allow them miss their contribution targets, since there are no consequences for doing so?

Their governments aren't led by carnival barkers. So their leaders will likely stick to their commitments.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Their governments aren't led by carnival barkers. So their leaders will likely stick to their commitments.

We'll see. I don't see how it will be possible -- assuming, anyway, American competitors do gain and exploit cost advantages. Clearly, that's what the German carmakers were fretting -- and I don't blame them.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You thinking Trump is going to seriously attempt to renegotiate anything on this topic? That's the real sham.

I don't know. But like I said, if he's not, then it presents a golden chance for them to call his bluff, dunnit?

Personally, I think we're better off going it alone. We can set our own goals and, that way, if and when we need to make adjustments, we can do so of our own volition...rather than subjecting them to an international panel of competitors who would love nothing more than to hamstring us.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Personally, I think we're better off going it alone.

How is it possible to do better going alone? In theory with international accords the buck can be passed. We need to force someone to pay more, but we have to do that because of some international agreement. My impression of America today is we aren't going to take any sacrifice, no matter how small. So unless we can solve global warming by reducing taxes to 0, I don't know how we do alone. Especially since the party in power seems to be made up of 30% of people who flat out do not believe the earth is warming and 65% who believe that it is warming but it is flat out impossible humans are involved.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

How is it possible to do better going alone? In theory with international accords the buck can be passed. We need to force someone to pay more, but we have to do that because of some international agreement. My impression of America today is we aren't going to take any sacrifice, no matter how small. So unless we can solve global warming by reducing taxes to 0, I don't know how we do alone. Especially since the party in power seems to be made up of 30% of people who flat out do not believe the earth is warming and 65% who believe that it is warming but it is flat out impossible humans are involved.

Hold on a second -- I was just told (and it was already my understanding) that, in the Paris framework, the NDCs are not only arbitrary, but not even enforced by anything in the way of consequences for failure to meet the arbitrary commitments.

So which is it? Does Paris give us the means to "force" other countries to do anything or doesn't it? It can't be both.

 

[Lucy01]

Does anyone on this board know Dave, personally? I am asking because, several years ago when I was moderating this board, he told me (and has posted about it since) that he was dying from cancer. That was quite a while ago and, perhaps I am late to this party, but I'm wondering if we (I) are/am being played.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

How is it possible to do better going alone?

Largely because of fracking, we are among leaders, if not the world's leader, in reducing carbon emissions. We don't need Paris to do what we do. The rest of the world mostly committed to a Paris reduction that is nothing different than the reduction we all expect from advancing technology and reduced use of coal without regulation or commitment. Uncle Sam, on the other hand, for better or worse, made very ambitious commitments, which likely will not be kept, thus we will pay billions in make-up fees; not to mention the havoc brought by job and economic disruption with attempted compliance. .