Bed

New Prez

Recommended Posts

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 8:25 PM, Exiled Phoenix said:

(e.g., green card holders who can/did get sent back to countries they haven't been to in years, that are possibly hostile to them, and in which they have no support network).

Didn't the admin clarify that green card holders were exempt? The % impacted is just a blanket statement, as I do not know what the criteria is to determine irreparable harm or the extent of immediate damage. It appears arbitrary and an outlet for exploit.

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 8:25 PM, Exiled Phoenix said:

While the process of determining lawfulness is carried out, the courts almost always err on the side of not doing anything that can not be easily undo. 

What is this criteria if temporary nature of the order appears to be difficult to undo? Is there a reason there is a preference, not including bias.

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 8:25 PM, Exiled Phoenix said:

Basically, two processes. The one you're complaining about is the stay, which is an extremely common thing when lawsuits are filed, even on matters much less significant than this. If the order is found to be unconstitutional, that is another thing entirely. 

I know courts doesn't compensate for failed lawsuits, they can pretty much hold someone and not compensate for major damage to a person after the person is found in the right. My only gripe is that, in my opinion, I think the court is abusing this out of political bias.

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 8:25 PM, Exiled Phoenix said:

Also, the President does not have blanket power to regulate immigration, and has to abide by a number of laws Congress has passed in the past. The order is definitely not clearly within the law. If it was clearly within the law it would not have been the ######show that it was, and it would not have made it to the point where multiple federal judges are ordering it to be halted while further arguments are done. 

How lawful the order isn't dependent on its performance. And it looks like a bunch of people are trying to figure out if it is lawful when it seems it is mostly if the order is religious discrimination.

 

If you don't like a law, you need to go through congress to get it changed. These judges are reaching and if it wasn't Trump, they'd lose all credibility.

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Paris agreement was probably one of the only things I thought would stay... Because it's a big global agreement, like NATO. Don't mess with these things...

 I don't know... this will definitely slow things down in terms of progress on alternative energy. Sounds like it will have an effect on how the U.S. looks at war too. The U.S. will eventually reduce oil consumption, as it is a limited resource. It's too bad... Demand and the technologies/infrastructure needed for the next new economy might go to China. Though I think the U.S. will always be leading in energy - I feel this decision kinda puts a dent in things...

Trump says he will re-negotiate... I doubt it, seems like something an advisor told him to say to reduce backlash. It's voluntary right?

Some points people on the internet have been making who supports this decision: It hurts the Economy. America First, globalism Bad. Kept his promise. Global Warming not a big deal. Hypocritical technologies because of oil infrastructure. The environment is a liberal thing, so anything liberal is bad. Religion. Even 1 person I talked actually cited Christians to be purveyors of the truth behind the conspiracy of global warming. Is this just another science vs religion biology class controversy again?

I was mostly interested in the stimulating effects on technology and energy independence. Oh well, keep inventing I suppose.

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost forgot about this thread because I don't have any political-minded friends that I can vent to and was about to go all rage quit on Twitter.

I just can't imagine the U.S. being a first-world "super power leader" country and not be engaged in climate issues in a positive way, especially since we seem the be the only first world country that doesn't care about climate (sorry, I haven't read the Paris Agreement in detail to know what other countries are engaged). I mean, Trump did promise job to the coal miners and it doesn't seem to be focusing on alternative forms of energy, but there are articles about how solar (and wind?) energy will create MORE jobs in the future. I feel like we are spiraling to a backward society where Trump is just resetting progress.

Even big respective corporations urged him not to pull out of the agreement: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/facebook-apple-urge-donald-trump-paris-agreement-not-pull-out-climate-change-global-warming-a7766521.html

We live on this earth and we need to take care of it. To believe climate change and global warming is a myth only for liberals makes me upset. What kinds of proof do we (apparently not science since that's not good enough) to pull out for people to start taking climate change seriously?! Now that Trump doesn't care for the environment, then how do you expect the American people to follow.

I'm upset that how can one president make so many awful-seeming decisions and not suffer consequences? Is he really listening to the people or is he just doing whatever instinctively makes the most noise and makes him the worse?

Not to mention, all the #covfefe memes yesterday seem to be huge distraction to what really matters at hand. Yes, the jokes of his tweet were fun and all, but I fear it took away from more pressing and serious issues like this.

When does Mars open up again?

ETA: Full transcript here https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15726638/trump-withdrawing-paris-climate-agreement-full-transcript

Edited by Zilary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zilary said:

Not to mention, all the #covfefe memes yesterday seem to be huge distraction to what really matters at hand. Yes, the jokes of his tweet were fun and all, but I fear it took away from more pressing and serious issues like this.

I saw this and still have no idea what it is. Saw some pics of coffee... okay? I just know a lot of people were making fun of Trump because of the typo or something? It was very weird. A typo, is that it? I'm thinking, could he be doing this on purpose? He probably didn't, but the reaction to it was bewildering. Kinda tired of seeing all these people talk about his little perks, like his hands, his hair, his skin color.

18 minutes ago, Zilary said:

Is he really listening to the people or is he just doing whatever instinctively makes the most noise and makes him the worse?

I think he is listening to /his/ people but ignoring everything else. With a global agreement like this, I guess he is ignoring U.S. allies as well.

22 minutes ago, Zilary said:

there are articles about how solar (and wind?) energy will create MORE jobs in the future. I feel like we are spiraling to a backward society where Trump is just resetting progress.

Also much more safe than coal mining and transferring oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Bed said:
On 6/1/2017 at 4:38 PM, Zilary said:

Not to mention, all the #covfefe memes yesterday seem to be huge distraction to what really matters at hand. Yes, the jokes of his tweet were fun and all, but I fear it took away from more pressing and serious issues like this.

I saw this and still have no idea what it is. Saw some pics of coffee... okay? I just know a lot of people were making fun of Trump because of the typo or something? It was very weird. A typo, is that it? I'm thinking, could he be doing this on purpose? He probably didn't, but the reaction to it was bewildering. Kinda tired of seeing all these people talk about his little perks, like his hands, his hair, his skin color.

Here's an NPR article about it: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/31/530861002/trump-asks-who-can-figure-out-covfefe-and-the-internets-hands-shoot-up
I believe I read somewhere that it was meant to say "coverage"...There's also a Reddit Thread

I saw a post on Facebook that compared this to "Trump pulling US out of Netflix to bring back Blockbuster jobs."

ETA: Recent video that explains a lot

 

Edited by Zilary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2017 at 2:38 PM, Zilary said:

sorry, I haven't read the Paris Agreement in detail to know what other countries are engaged

I see that you've since done some research, but I think this has been the big problem surrounding this discussion. There are only two reasons that there's been a nearly worldwide support for the agreement: the lack of penalty and the fact that most countries are individually impacted minimally (if not garnering support). Meanwhile, the United States faces a disproportionate amount of the burden.

On 6/1/2017 at 2:38 PM, Zilary said:

What kinds of proof do we (apparently not science since that's not good enough) to pull out for people to start taking climate change seriously?!

The political motivations behind the climate change narrative are a large cause for concern in my mind. While I would like to address the ecological impact humans have upon the Earth, I see hubris in the assumption that we and we alone are responsible for the warming of the Earth, and furthermore we lack anything resembling any certainty of what our impact will be or where a tipping point is to whether our efforts will justify the costs involved. Many are quick to say that the worst case scenario of an uninhabitable world is reason enough, but that's a poor argument.

Meanwhile, the awareness an interest by many individuals and groups provide other avenues to work towards the goals of the Paris agreement without requiring action on the part of the federal government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shattered Rift said:

here are only two reasons that there's been a nearly worldwide support for the agreement: the lack of penalty and the fact that most countries are individually impacted minimally (if not garnering support). Meanwhile, the United States faces a disproportionate amount of the burden.

When you say support, do you mean if nations signed the agreement or not? The lack of penalty might be a reason why the agreement isn't as effective as you might wish, but it is the only agreement of its kind. Without penalty or enforcement, what might be the reason to exit the agreement? I really don't see a path to enforcing other nations unless we actively go to trade wars or maybe actively sell cheap energy products... Also, I would like to point out the strain on other nations might be greater than the U.S. because of the difference in industrialization. I believe the specific issue surrounds China's commitment vs U.S. is what Trump is looking at.

Quote

As of December 2016, 191 states and the European Union have signed the Agreement. 148 of those parties have ratified or acceded to the Agreement, most notably China and India, the countries with three of the four largest greenhouse gas emissions of the signatories' total (about 42% together).

4 Parties entitled to sign, have  not done so: Holy See, Nicaragua, Syria. And now the United States. 

As you said, this is without enforcement. This agreement is merely an acknowledgement of the risks involved, and clearly there is worldwide efforts to mitigate these risks and monitor progress by having such discussions via this agreement. I highly doubt 4 years is enough time to re-negotiate given the amount of coordination needed. 

How it is a burden to the U.S? Does Trump mean our Economy will be in shambles or be lesser of China if we continue? Who predicts these things and who are they sponsored by? I see that the U.S. will greatly benefit from being energy independent. I guess Trump did say he wants to save the coal mining jobs. Wants to keep gas prices as low as possible. With the expense of... intensified emissions. The alternative is we don't have to pay for gas, and reduce emissions, and the U.S. will lead in manufacturing this, not China. It's apparent that Trump is focused on short term goals, which I think slows us down. I don't know the degree, but the demand for new energy is apparent at this moment, because virtually everyone acknowledges the issue, even including big oil. This might not be the case in the future, I don't know. The only people I see that are pushing the counter arguments are tied to coal, and of course the GOP, which has resonated with many Americans  that voted trump. 

4 hours ago, Shattered Rift said:

The political motivations behind the climate change narrative are a large cause for concern in my mind. While I would like to address the ecological impact humans have upon the Earth, I see hubris in the assumption that we and we alone are responsible for the warming of the Earth, and furthermore we lack anything resembling any certainty of what our impact will be or where a tipping point is to whether our efforts will justify the costs involved. Many are quick to say that the worst case scenario of an uninhabitable world is reason enough, but that's a poor argument.

It's true that this issue is used, misrepresented, and exploited for political reasons but I think it is unfair if we should disregard the issue because a few people are exploiting it for personal gains. The only issue it should represent is the potential catastrophic harm to humans worldwide. You don't need to even account if it is man made or not, the idea is that in order to mitigate potential catastrophic events identified by... scientific data, we need to mitigate these risks in case this happens. In engineering, this is principle for any system you are designing, especially for the public. Otherwise you end up killing the public, receive bad public image, and having to spend much more money to go out and redesign, install, test. 

If you take global warming out of the picture altogether, we are still left with the issue of running out of natural resources. Though not sure how long this will take, instead of transitioning smoothly, we intend to leave it to future generations to figure out. 
 

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bed said:

When you say support, do you mean if nations signed the agreement or not?

Yes. A lot of the comments I've seen going around Facebook have been about the fact that the US is supposedly in disagreement with the entire world and blah blah blah as if any of this matters.

8 minutes ago, Bed said:

How it is a burden to the U.S?

The agreement requires certain nations, including the US, to contribute to other nations, effectively costing us money without providing returns. I've seen some mention that China is exempt from this portion (which would explain why they entered into it), but I'm still in the process of finding accurate sources on this. As I understand it, this is Trump's issue with the agreement, that we're just saying, "Yeah, we'll pay you guys money and you don't have to pay it back ever."

11 minutes ago, Bed said:

You don't need to even account if it is man made or not, the idea is that in order to mitigate potential catastrophic events identified by... scientific data, we need to mitigate these risks in case this happens.

I disagree with this completely. The questions of whether it's man-made and whether or not we can make a significant difference are the two core issues. If it's not our fault, then let's stop with the guilt-tripping arguments. If we can't do anything significant about it, then let's release the burdens on business.

Our insistence that the government must be the acting force ignores the large number of individuals and charitable organizations willing to take action without insisting on yet another increase in taxation.

11 minutes ago, Bed said:

If you take global warming out of the picture altogether, we are still left with the issue of running out of natural resources.

I can just as easily argue that this is irrelevant because in 1,000 years we'll have technology that eclipses what's currently possible and this entire issue will be moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 10:43 PM, Shattered Rift said:

I disagree with this completely. The questions of whether it's man-made and whether or not we can make a significant difference are the two core issues. If it's not our fault, then let's stop with the guilt-tripping arguments. If we can't do anything significant about it, then let's release the burdens on business.

1st core issue - guilt-tripping arguments: Agreed to end guilt tripping arguments. 

Identifying the root cause is a great way in finding the right mitigation measures. But lets just say it is natural. The U.S. shouldn't be blamed. People shouldn't be blamed. This doesn't change the predicted consequences if it is natural or man-made. The point is, this agreement acknowledges this outcome and its a call that action is needed.

2nd core issue - The significance of delaying the effects of climate change is to reduce predicted loss and allow time for technology to advance. No doubt that any amount of reduction will delay some effects- I believe the goals set by the agreement is significant enough to offset time and provide demand to help transition out of coal and oil dependence.

Would it be significant enough to affect our lives though? Probably not. Climate change won't affect us directly in our lifetime. It will affect other parts of the world, that I assume is 'inevitable,' so I guess the logic is that the economic loss is not worth the 'inevitable' to many people. And the hubris from the left constantly making foolish arguments as if they know everything about this issue, but the reality is that nobody knows the future and the severity of the impact. We can make predictions based on the past and what's happening right now. If there is anyone who can accurately predict the future, I'd like to know.

I prefer the cautious and proactive route, but some people would like to run the experiment. And then there are people that completely deny the issue, which is absurd, but money is money. I understand that you hold the U.S. Economy as the utmost priority, so I don't think I can convince you that priority is a mixed bag.

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 10:43 PM, Shattered Rift said:

The agreement requires certain nations, including the US, to contribute to other nations, effectively costing us money without providing returns. I've seen some mention that China is exempt from this portion (which would explain why they entered into it), but I'm still in the process of finding accurate sources on this. As I understand it, this is Trump's issue with the agreement, that we're just saying, "Yeah, we'll pay you guys money and you don't have to pay it back ever."

If Trump thinks we are paying too much money, he can reduce the spending money in his 4 years in office. There isn't enforcement to uphold the requirements. Leaving the agreement entirely is just a big slap in the face by coal and the GOP. 

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 10:43 PM, Shattered Rift said:

I can just as easily argue that this is irrelevant because in 1,000 years we'll have technology that eclipses what's currently possible and this entire issue will be moot.

A 1000 years from now, is intriguing. In the context of nuclear war, environmental changes, exhausting resources, solar flares, epidemics, maybe even being hit by a meteor, it is difficult to imagine what technologies would exist then. In Starcraft, once you exhaust your resources, you would have to expand. But I think the idea that relying on the development of future technology is bleak. Technology doesn't just happen, it requires a lot of work and time. Technology can even downgrade if not stimulated... see the fall of past empires and how their ingenuity just started to free fall. An example I like is our space program. It was once great. Now we rely on Russian rocketry. Speaking strictly to just resources, the potential that technology can be forgotten is probable. I think it's a good idea that we transition into a new way of sourcing energy early rather than later.

I personally believe that certain types of technology will continue to grow exponentially and accurate simulations would be the saving grace for machines to produce physical means for us to adapt in limited resource environments. But again, I suggest we don't rely on the future, considering potential technological walls. There's just too many probable scenarios that can end terribly. Continually steering and monitoring these probabilities is the safest path in my opinion. The Paris agreement has its parts in this. 

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1000 years from now? 

We're ######ed well before that if current trends continue. And even if it is 1000 years, you can't assume we'll have an answer. Humanity has answers to every crisis...until it doesn't and we go extinct. 

And western nations were able to expand due to exploiting the environment, and after that we exploited other countries to maintain wealth. With that in mind, why are you opposed to giving a tiny amount of money to allow said earlier exploited countries to develop more environmentally friendly. 

 

The countries are going to develop either way and wonderful capitalism dictates that it should be done at the expense of the environment. So somebody needs to cover the cost, or the planet gets ruined and we're all screwed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sinical said:

The countries are going to develop either way and wonderful capitalism dictates that it should be done at the expense of the environment. So somebody needs to cover the cost, or the planet gets ruined and we're all screwed. 

Coal and oil has done wonders for everyone overall. I think the use of these resources were integral to advance our civilization and enable us our present quality of life and capabilities like better health and control of disease.

I think we've reached a transitional point that many of the negative issues tied to fossil fuel can be forgoed.

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now