• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Trump says privately he will leave Paris climate agreement, and does!

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
61,027
4,591
126
I hate the current state of politics. Trumpkins not believing climate change is a real and present thread soley because libs say it is and we shoot ourselves in the foot (hell in the head) over it. Frick Trump and his supporters and frick the Dems too (over plenty of different issues).

Everyone sucks.
Amen to that. There's no longer any common sense or compromise. It's entirely a game of fuck you, got mine. My team is winning.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,596
7,667
136
I hate the current state of politics. Trumpkins not believing climate change is a real and present thread soley because libs say it is and we shoot ourselves in the foot (hell in the head) over it. Frick Trump and his supporters and frick the Dems too (over plenty of different issues).

Everyone sucks.
Yep should of Voted for Giant Meteorite. It would've all been over by now.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,486
21,464
136
Then I guess that sums up my problem here. Executive agreements like this are just treaties that don't need senate approval because we call them executive agreements.

From what I've read about them, executive agreements tend to regard trivial administrative matters. The Paris agreement is hardly such according to its proponents. It should've gone to the Senate, even if only to be shot down.
This is not correct. Executive agreements are that way because they involve actions that reside only within the president's powers. How 'important' they are is irrelevant. What you're saying is that the senate should have a say in how the president uses his powers, but that's unconstitutional.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,205
5,293
136
I'd rather this not become the legacy of the US, just each administration spending their entire term reversing whatever the previous administration did. It sounds very fall-of-Rome.
Well, I want to see how it goes. The Republicans seem to have underestimated how much of a backlash they'd face for actually implementing everything they want, sometimes from their previously loyal constituents. If they take a drubbing in 2018 and 2020, you may see them backing off of their "everything you're for I'm against" strategy. Maybe.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
15,327
2,834
126
I hate the current state of politics. Trumpkins not believing climate change is a real and present thread soley because libs say it is and we shoot ourselves in the foot (hell in the head) over it. Frick Trump and his supporters and frick the Dems too (over plenty of different issues).

Everyone sucks.

U radicalized, bro?
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,316
10,137
136
Exactly. Fossil fuels now have a realistic retirement date in the future. The world is cutting back on its consumption of fossil fuels in place of wind, solar, tidal, hydro, and nuclear. This is also filtering down to the consumer level with high mileage cars, or cars that use a battery as its energy source. There is a surplus of oil in the market, has been for years, and as the world slows its oil consumption that wont change. Time to move onto higher growth industry for these energy companies.
Yea the big question on electrified transportation is not if the change is coming but when, largely driven by the battery cost curve decline.
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
3,347
1,638
136
Well, I want to see how it goes. The Republicans seem to have underestimated how much of a backlash they'd face for actually implementing everything they want, sometimes from their previously loyal constituents. If they take a drubbing in 2018 and 2020, you may see them backing off of their "everything you're for I'm against" strategy. Maybe.
The Republicans are well on their way to triggering a larger than normal young voter turnout, and a lot of their current insane base is really old. To remain anywhere near relevant as the insanity literally dies off they're going to have to pull back towards center. I have a lot of faith that demographics alone will make their current strategy irrelevant and unworkable. It would be nice to have a real choice again.

The median Fox News viewer is something like 70 years old ...
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,338
4,241
146
Well, I want to see how it goes. The Republicans seem to have underestimated how much of a backlash they'd face for actually implementing everything they want, sometimes from their previously loyal constituents. If they take a drubbing in 2018 and 2020, you may see them backing off of their "everything you're for I'm against" strategy. Maybe.
I really don't think they will. The problem is, the staunch supporters actually *want* this kind of behavior, for whatever reasons are appropriate to them (as individuals). They'll ride this car off the cliff, I think, until the Republican base is so eroded that 'third parties' start eating their votes.

I think the Repub party has truly lost sight of what it stands for beyond 'opposite of dems'. I'd hazard to guess most supporters couldn't define what the Repub party actually wants without including either the word 'Democrat' 'Liberal' or a mention of a specific policy that dems have put in place in the last 12 years.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
This is not correct. Executive agreements are that way because they involve actions that reside only within the president's powers. How 'important' they are is irrelevant. What you're saying is that the senate should have a say in how the president uses his powers, but that's unconstitutional.
Well, according to your wikipedia link:

"An executive agreement, however, cannot go beyond the President's constitutional powers. If an agreement was in the competence of the United States Congress, it would need to become a congressional-executive agreement or a treaty with Senate advice and consent."

Though I understand little of the actual agreement, if the goal of it was to reduce emissions over a period of time, that would necessarily come at an economic cost. I would think that is certainly within the competence of Congress to consider.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,354
1,175
136
you are seriously fucked in the head. it must truly suck to be you if you think what drumpf is doing is 'winning' in any sense of morality or for the common good.
Then I guess that sums up my problem here. Executive agreements like this are just treaties that don't need senate approval because we call them executive agreements.

From what I've read about them, executive agreements tend to regard trivial administrative matters. The Paris agreement is hardly such according to its proponents. It should've gone to the Senate, even if only to be shot down.
BINGO! It's a treaty and needed to be approved in the Constitutional way that treaties are required to be ratified. The Paris Accord/Agreement (but not a treaty) may as well have been printed on toilet paper for what it's worth.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,338
4,241
146
BINGO! It's a treaty and needed to be approved in the Constitutional way that treaties are required to be ratified. The Paris Accord/Agreement (but not a treaty) may as well have been printed on toilet paper for what it's worth.
It was a gentlemen's agreement, between every nation on the planet save one who's in the middle of a historic crisis and another who didn't think it was going far enough. Even treaties are just pieces of paper written by old guys in suits, not passed down the mountain by a man in the sky. All this stuff is only as strong as those willing to stand by it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
This is not correct. Executive agreements are that way because they involve actions that reside only within the president's powers. How 'important' they are is irrelevant. What you're saying is that the senate should have a say in how the president uses his powers, but that's unconstitutional.
This agreement requires funding from the US tax payer right? I'd think that would require approval from the branch that provides funding. Either way an executive agreement sounds a lot like an executive order. Good until the next asshole comes into power and gets rid of said agreement\order. Like what we had yesterday. LBJ while a warmonger had it right when members of his council\cabinet suggested he executive ordered his way to civil rights. His response was the next administration can wipe it out. He wanted civil rights to be law, something that would require hundreds of representatives\senators to overturn. Not one asshole named Richard Nixon.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,486
21,464
136
Well, according to your wikipedia link:

"An executive agreement, however, cannot go beyond the President's constitutional powers. If an agreement was in the competence of the United States Congress, it would need to become a congressional-executive agreement or a treaty with Senate advice and consent."

Though I understand little of the actual agreement, if the goal of it was to reduce emissions over a period of time, that would necessarily come at an economic cost. I would think that is certainly within the competence of Congress to consider.
What that means is if it requires congressional powers to enact, which the Paris agreement does not. Just because something has an economic cost does not suddenly make it something governed by the powers of Congress as the powers of Congress aren't based on whether something has an economic effect or not.

It's really that simple, did the Paris Agreement make the US subject to requirements that needed Congressional powers to enact? If so, then it needs to be a treaty. This did not. If you think it did, can you point to what action Obama took that needed Congressional approval?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,486
21,464
136
This agreement requires funding from the US tax payer right? I'd think that would require approval from the branch that provides funding.
No, definitely not. Obama was acting within his regulatory and discretionary authority under already existing law and it created no legally binding requirements on the US that would require Congressional approval. The Paris Agreement was no more than Obama basically saying "I promise to the rest of the world that I'll take steps within the law as it already exists to reduce US carbon emissions". That's just not in any way something that would require approval.

Think about it this way, that argument means that the President needs Congress to approve what personal promises he makes to other nations. That would be an egregious violation of the separation of powers and would be unconstitutional.

Either way an executive agreement sounds a lot like an executive order. Good until the next asshole comes into power and gets rid of said agreement\order. Like what we had yesterday. LBJ while a warmonger had it right when members of his council\cabinet suggested he executive ordered his way to civil rights. His response was the next administration can wipe it out. He wanted civil rights to be law, something that would require hundreds of representatives\senators to overturn. Not one asshole named Richard Nixon.
That most certainly is the weakness! The only problem here is that we both know a Republican Senate would never have acted on climate change so he had to go with what powers he had. It was better than nothing.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,338
4,241
146
That most certainly is the weakness! The only problem here is that we both know a Republican Senate would never have acted on climate change so he had to go with what powers he had. It was better than nothing.
This doesn't get stated enough. The primary reason why at this point each president (primarily Obama until now) has had to do these 'EO/Not congressionally approved/whatevers' agreements, orders, etc, are because whoever the opposite side just says 'no, F U' to *anything proposed*. Our existing system has created a near-monarchy, albeit a hobbled one, because there's nothing a president can do without congress shutting him down.

I wouldn't be surprised if reverse psychology wouldn't work at this point, just present rules for the opposite of what you want to happen.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
No, definitely not. Obama was acting within his regulatory and discretionary authority under already existing law and it created no legally binding requirements on the US that would require Congressional approval. The Paris Agreement was no more than Obama basically saying "I promise to the rest of the world that I'll take steps within the law as it already exists to reduce US carbon emissions". That's just not in any way something that would require approval.

Think about it this way, that argument means that the President needs Congress to approve what personal promises he makes to other nations. That would be an egregious violation of the separation of powers and would be unconstitutional.
I thought there was a fund this agreement creates that helps poorer countries with infrastructure\green upgrades or funds for damage mitigation due to the changing climate? That would require the tax payer foot the bill. How does that not fall under congressional jurisdiction?

My argument absolutely does not require a president consult congress on personal promises or items that fall under the executive branch. Unless those personal promises require funding. Is that not the case if the president needs funding he goes to congress?

That most certainly is the weakness! The only problem here is that we both know a Republican Senate would never have acted on climate change so he had to go with what powers he had. It was better than nothing.
Absolutely it would had made it harder or impossible for Obama to get it done. But it also would had allowed for input, negotiation, and something Trump couldn't throw away with a poorly thought out argument. The way I see it is we ended up at the same position. Except now we can be the scapegoat for the world. So I don't think it was better than nothing.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,205
5,293
136
I really don't think they will. The problem is, the staunch supporters actually *want* this kind of behavior, for whatever reasons are appropriate to them (as individuals). They'll ride this car off the cliff, I think, until the Republican base is so eroded that 'third parties' start eating their votes.

I think the Repub party has truly lost sight of what it stands for beyond 'opposite of dems'. I'd hazard to guess most supporters couldn't define what the Repub party actually wants without including either the word 'Democrat' 'Liberal' or a mention of a specific policy that dems have put in place in the last 12 years.
You could be right, I won't deny that. To me, it's just that the Republicans are acting like kids who just got control over the school cafeteria. They think ice cream for lunch every day will be the best thing ever, but they might regret it later when kids start getting fat and sick. They're just hoping the rest of the kids won't connect the dots and stuff the perpetrators into a locker.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
61,027
4,591
126
The energy companies are the innovators in clean energy. They will be the primary beneficiaries of moving to a green economy. So no, I don't believe they are saying one thing in private vs public.
Fair enough. Any guesses or speculation why the usual Obstructionists...supspects...Senators wrote a letter to Trump urging him to yank the deal?
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,338
4,241
146
You could be right, I won't deny that. To me, it's just that the Republicans are acting like kids who just got control over the school cafeteria. They think ice cream for lunch every day will be the best thing ever, but they might regret it later when kids start getting fat and sick. They're just hoping the rest of the kids won't connect the dots and stuff the perpetrators into a locker.
I agree. I normally try to find some kind of middle ground (or at minimum don't blame everyone for the actions of a few) but it's very, very hard right now to not just write off the entire party has having collectively lost their minds.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,928
3,444
126
We have a president, elected by a minority, who exists in an alternate reality and has absolutely no desire to broaden himself or learn. Same goes for the minority, they simply do not want to learn. No matter how many times it is said, or demonstrated, I just can't believe it.
You are learning firsthand what polarization does to people.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Fair enough. Any guesses or speculation why the usual Obstructionists...supspects...Senators wrote a letter to Trump urging him to yank the deal?
They are idiots? What I find most interesting is how only 20 of them wrote the letter. Which tells me the GOP is split on this issue.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY