Disney CEO Bob Iger among the executives abandoning Trump advisory roles over climate agreement

Capitalism is the best system for determining who drives a Lexus - it is wholly inappropriate for determining who gets food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare.

edit: ...and clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

Pete said:
Basically the previous administration sold out U.S. citizens by tailoring the accords to benefit the global corporations that supported the deal....

....hurt by accelerated, forced adoption of renewable energy.

Yeah, I just can't buy into the idea the Obama administration "sold out" U.S. citizens by saying it would sure be cool if all of the countries* on earth could meet the goals they set for their own countries.

As noted, the Accords were tailored to what the U.S. wanted, back in the day when the U.S. President was the leader of the free world. I guess, now, that would be Chancellor Angela Markel of Germany.

And the Accords are unenforceable; no country would have been "forced" to adopt anything.

*Excepting Syria and Nicaragua, which Loser Donald Trump seems to think are the countries America should stand with.

slithernoggin said:

And the Accords are unenforceable; no country would have been "forced" to adopt anything.

Which leads me to believe more than ever a theory I mentioned on Facebook the other day (stick with this):

I have a theory that Trump really isn't doing much that every president hasn't done - politics is politics, after all - it's just that he really sucks at the presentation portion of the program.

I don't doubt shady **** happens all the time, but career politicians handle this sort of thing differently than career business jerks do. In fact, Trump comes from a world where that sort of thing makes you shrewd and is revered to a certain degree, I'd imagine.

In other words, image & PR for a politician and for a business jerk are two totally different universes. That's the crux of the disconnect here. He literally sucks at doing his job - looking good and acting like nothing happened while shady **** goes down. He can't not take credit. He has to tell people, "I did that. Give me credit." even when he should be a couple of ten foot poles away.

Plausible deniability does not exist for this man.

And I'm only being sort of facetious.

Because the smart man does what all the other leaders are doing...nothing.

Rather than making a big stink about withdrawing from the whole thing and getting everyone's panties bunched, why wouldn't you just do nothing? It's not enforceable.

And, like I said, I'm fully ignorant on this topic, but I'm still not understanding why everyone is so pissed about leaving an agreement that required us to do nothing in the first place. I mean, it seemed like a bad idea to me until this thread. Now I just don't care.

Oh no. We're not part of something that required us to do nothing.

Surely, I'm not the only one that hears the absurdity in that.

But yeah, Trump just sucks at the whole presentation thing. If I'm in a nonenforceable agreement that's popular with the people I govern, but I don't want to do what the agreement says I don't have to do...

44 out of 45 presidents would just do nothing. The 45th would act out in some desperate cry for attention because he's always existed in a world where getting attention and taking action, for better or worse, is seen as a effective leadership.

And this is the disconnect with the guy. If I'm in Trump's shoes, I never publicly mention the whole deal ever again and I tell everyone behind closed doors to forget about it. It's unenforceable and the masses get to keep their warm fuzzies intact.

Speaking for myself, I'm not pissed, really; annoyed, mostly. There was no downside to remaining in the Accords since they could be ignored. (Or attended to, since the goal of managing global waming isn't a bad goal.) I have other things about Trump to be pissed about :-)

Your description of "...the 45th would act out in some desperate cry for attention..." is spot on.

What's this world coming to when I agree with Mr Lord Gonchar on a political matter?

Lord Gonchar said:

Rather than making a big stink about withdrawing from the whole thing and getting everyone's panties bunched, why wouldn't you just do nothing? It's not enforceable.

I think there *is* some logic to his making a big deal out of it. He's not playing to America as a whole, he plays to his base. And actually, I see some wisdom in that, since the Representatives in Congress cannot fully repudiate him if he has the support of THEIR constituents.

rollergator said:

Capitalism is the best system for determining who drives a Lexus - it is wholly inappropriate for determining who gets food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare.

edit: ...and clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

I hate socialism and everything it stands for. Capitalism is the best system for determining who drives an Audi and it is wholly APPROPRIATE for determining who gets food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare.

Still, we don't live in a wholly capitalistic society. You have the good fortune to be able to afford to own a boat, for example, but you also recieve numerous financial benefits from the government. (I'm assuming that you take all the deductions available to you on your taxes.)

I have the good fortune to have found a place to live with great guys that I can afford on my $21,000 annual income (50 year old autistic guys are a hard sell in today's job market....) Saying that people who can't afford food, clothing or shelter don't deserve food, clothing or shelter seems harsh.

Pete, that's awesome - if you want to live in a third world country with a bunch of sick, naked, hungry, homeless people. Stay up on your immunizations though, they have a tendency to make other people sick too...

Food, clothing, education, and shelter are basic human rights. Access to affordable healthcare should be available.

If you dispute that, I question your morals.

Plenty of people live in poverty not because of anything they've done themselves. If you think a child deserves to starve because they don't have responsible parents to provide for them then I think you're a pretty disgusting person.

Should you get less military protection than Bill Gates? Successful governments should and often do make sure that at a minimum people are provided basic human rights.

You can play the Gonch card and say no one is owed anything for any reason and that's fine. But Gonch doesn't run a successful goverenment (yet).

Tekwardo said:

You can play the Gonch card and say no one is owed anything for any reason and that's fine.

I love that I don't even have to participate anymore.

But Gonch doesn't run a successful goverenment (yet).

Neither does socialism. ;)

but you also recieve numerous financial benefits from the government. (I'm assuming that you take all the deductions available to you on your taxes.)

The thought process behind this has always puzzled me. Its as if everything everyone earns belongs to the government and its a benefit that they let you keep any of it.

Hm. I'm not saying that everything anyone earns belongs to the government. I'm saying that people who pay their taxes in exchange receive benefits fron the government. You know, roads, a military, people whose job it is to make sure planes don't crash into each other, deductions for mortgages, home offices, medical costs and so on.

Yeah, everyone loves tax refund time. While I always appreciate getting cash back at a time when I typically need extra cash, it pisses me off because I should have had that cash all along but didn't because the government took more than it was supposed to and kept it for a year, interest free of course. And at the same time if I make a slight mistake in my favor, I get audited and have to fix it immediately...and pay a fine to boot.

But you can adjust your withholdings to reduce or eliminate how much you owe the government each April.

Ah, but we don't have a socialist government here, Gonch ;-).

Vater said:

Yeah, everyone loves tax refund time. While I always appreciate getting cash back at a time when I typically need extra cash, it pisses me off because I should have had that cash all along but didn't because the government took more than it was supposed to and kept it for a year, interest free of course.

You can change your deductions and keep the money until tax time...

But then we'd all complain about paying taxes!

^^You conveniently left off his last sentence. If you adjust your withholding and owe more than the government says is acceptable come filing time, you get a penalty and potentially charged interest on the underpaid amount.

You only get a penalty and pay interest if you don't pay it on time.