I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
Actually, it's not debatable at all. If it were a "treaty" than the Senate needs to vote on it. What other topics would you like me to school you on?
I’d say sticking to the point of the topic but that’s a lost cause.
You brought up Europe and treaties and other bullshit to deflect from the topic
Dumb as a rock
Well you actually wrote a sentence this time. Not a deflection at all. The point was Europe and whether or not we value their opinions. Sure feels like global organizations (UN) and “accords” (Paris) are relevant.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
The WHO is controlled by China and the UN isn’t located in Europe, so excuse Bonehead for his ignorance.
What a moron.
The UN had various headquarters, several sites around Europe. The WHO is literally not controlled by China. Don’t be purposefully daft.
The UN has its world HQ in New York. The USA pays for a lot of it.
UN Headquarters in New York City, USA, is home to the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council, and much of the UN Secretariat.
Moron
And this means exactly what? Is the UN a USA only organization? Where the UN is located means little to the point here. Thanks for trying.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
Actually, it's not debatable at all. If it were a "treaty" than the Senate needs to vote on it. What other topics would you like me to school you on?
I’d say sticking to the point of the topic but that’s a lost cause.
You brought up Europe and treaties and other bullshit to deflect from the topic
Dumb as a rock
He also supports US air strikes in Syria because they could possibly bomb US soldiers Biden is sending to Iraq.
Just a few days ago I posted how the Pentagon wants more troops in Iraq for “NATO.”
Nah, it’s Chickenhawk wartime again and troops are being deployed.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
Actually, it's not debatable at all. If it were a "treaty" than the Senate needs to vote on it. What other topics would you like me to school you on?
I’d say sticking to the point of the topic but that’s a lost cause.
You brought up Europe and treaties and other bullshit to deflect from the topic
Dumb as a rock
Well you actually wrote a sentence this time. Not a deflection at all. The point was Europe and whether or not we value their opinions. Sure feels like global organizations (UN) and “accords” (Paris) are relevant.
The point wasn't about valuing opinions of anyone. France took an action and the discussion was about that action
Valuing opinions is fag talk. Not surprising
The UN and the Paris accords are inf act, irrelevant. Always. If you would like to discuss them start a thread that will THUD
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
Actually, it's not debatable at all. If it were a "treaty" than the Senate needs to vote on it. What other topics would you like me to school you on?
I’d say sticking to the point of the topic but that’s a lost cause.
You're the one who went down the "treaty" path my friend.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
We are Europeans you ass hole. We are the best of them. Did you learn nothing in school?
What a dick. Move to Uganda asshat, you will then miss what you had. Admit you are a racist, bigoted POS and save us all of your self cleansing bullshit.
FFS.........another self loathing, America hating rat. I am sick of these pussies.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Proven citation needed.
I wouldn’t worry. Mike Lindell is going to blow it wide open during the discovery phase of his upcoming trial. You will be vindicated. I shall cheer for you, Spaniard.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
Actually, it's not debatable at all. If it were a "treaty" than the Senate needs to vote on it. What other topics would you like me to school you on?
I’d say sticking to the point of the topic but that’s a lost cause.
You brought up Europe and treaties and other bullshit to deflect from the topic
Dumb as a rock
Well you actually wrote a sentence this time. Not a deflection at all. The point was Europe and whether or not we value their opinions. Sure feels like global organizations (UN) and “accords” (Paris) are relevant.
The point wasn't about valuing opinions of anyone. France took an action and the discussion was about that action
Valuing opinions is fag talk. Not surprising
The UN and the Paris accords are inf act, irrelevant. Always. If you would like to discuss them start a thread that will THUD
A better response. I’ll connect some dots, I understand some might have got lost. It was a French opinion that mail-in ballots might lead to voter fraud. An opinion they’ve had for decades and were rethinking after they witnessed the huge voter turnout in the US.
Given the derisive attitude toward European opinions in general on this board I found it odd and potentially hypocritical that this particular French opinion was valued. That is all.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
It's not just semantics. Claiming that we reneged on a "treaty" is a big deal. Claiming that Trump opted out of an agreement Obama signed onto that didn't limit any other country's emissions but did limit ours, isn't quite the same thing. Why should Trump have to follow an agreement Obama made? If Obama wanted to give his agreements weight and longevity he should have submitted them to the Senate.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
It's not just semantics. Claiming that we reneged on a "treaty" is a big deal. Claiming that Trump opted out of an agreement Obama signed onto that didn't limit any other country's emissions but did limit ours, isn't quite the same thing. Why should Trump have to follow an agreement Obama made? If Obama wanted to give his agreements weight and longevity he should have submitted them to the Senate.
This is a totally fair stance with many good points. It doesn’t take into account several factors though. The senate operated largely under bad faith throughout much of Obama’s presidency and wouldn’t vote anything in if he backed it. The US has been one of the largest producers of emissions, the largest for a long time, and most of the world understandably needed to see our commitment. Which didn’t happen because our senate was unwilling to give Obama anything.
So while it isn’t a treaty, my own words and you’re correct on that. It is/was an extremely important accord that should have/should still be progressed to a treaty and the US should push the issue forward. There are other factors to discuss here and I am not trying to oversimplify it, though a message does tend to pull for that.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
It's not just semantics. Claiming that we reneged on a "treaty" is a big deal. Claiming that Trump opted out of an agreement Obama signed onto that didn't limit any other country's emissions but did limit ours, isn't quite the same thing. Why should Trump have to follow an agreement Obama made? If Obama wanted to give his agreements weight and longevity he should have submitted them to the Senate.
This is a totally fair stance with many good points. It doesn’t take into account several factors though. The senate operated largely under bad faith throughout much of Obama’s presidency and wouldn’t vote anything in if he backed it. The US has been one of the largest producers of emissions, the largest for a long time, and most of the world understandably needed to see our commitment. Which didn’t happen because our senate was unwilling to give Obama anything.
So while it isn’t a treaty, my own words and you’re correct on that. It is/was an extremely important accord that should have/should still be progressed to a treaty and the US should push the issue forward. There are other factors to discuss here and I am not trying to oversimplify it, though a message does tend to pull for that.
The simplicity is that Obama never submitted it to the Senate, so it’s not a “treaty,” dipshit.
Also, the US under Trump lowered CO2 emissions while Germany and others didn’t. Angela Hitler in Germany wants to buy more carbon fuel from Putin and enrich him, ffs.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
Actually, it's not debatable at all. If it were a "treaty" than the Senate needs to vote on it. What other topics would you like me to school you on?
I’d say sticking to the point of the topic but that’s a lost cause.
You brought up Europe and treaties and other bullshit to deflect from the topic
Dumb as a rock
Well you actually wrote a sentence this time. Not a deflection at all. The point was Europe and whether or not we value their opinions. Sure feels like global organizations (UN) and “accords” (Paris) are relevant.
The point wasn't about valuing opinions of anyone. France took an action and the discussion was about that action
Valuing opinions is fag talk. Not surprising
The UN and the Paris accords are inf act, irrelevant. Always. If you would like to discuss them start a thread that will THUD
A better response. I’ll connect some dots, I understand some might have got lost. It was a French opinion that mail-in ballots might lead to voter fraud. An opinion they’ve had for decades and were rethinking after they witnessed the huge voter turnout in the US.
Given the derisive attitude toward European opinions in general on this board I found it odd and potentially hypocritical that this particular French opinion was valued. That is all.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
It's not just semantics. Claiming that we reneged on a "treaty" is a big deal. Claiming that Trump opted out of an agreement Obama signed onto that didn't limit any other country's emissions but did limit ours, isn't quite the same thing. Why should Trump have to follow an agreement Obama made? If Obama wanted to give his agreements weight and longevity he should have submitted them to the Senate.
This is a totally fair stance with many good points. It doesn’t take into account several factors though. The senate operated largely under bad faith throughout much of Obama’s presidency and wouldn’t vote anything in if he backed it. The US has been one of the largest producers of emissions, the largest for a long time, and most of the world understandably needed to see our commitment. Which didn’t happen because our senate was unwilling to give Obama anything.
So while it isn’t a treaty, my own words and you’re correct on that. It is/was an extremely important accord that should have/should still be progressed to a treaty and the US should push the issue forward. There are other factors to discuss here and I am not trying to oversimplify it, though a message does tend to pull for that.
Yes, by not rubber stamping everything Obama wanted they were operating under "bad faith." He couldn't have gotten 2/3 of the Senate to ratify it because it was a shitty agreement that only limited US emissions and allowed our competitors to continue their emissions and in some cases, to increase their emissions. The only person operating in "bad faith" was Obama and the US media who blatantly lied or omitted what the Paris Agreement actually did.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
It's not just semantics. Claiming that we reneged on a "treaty" is a big deal. Claiming that Trump opted out of an agreement Obama signed onto that didn't limit any other country's emissions but did limit ours, isn't quite the same thing. Why should Trump have to follow an agreement Obama made? If Obama wanted to give his agreements weight and longevity he should have submitted them to the Senate.
This is a totally fair stance with many good points. It doesn’t take into account several factors though. The senate operated largely under bad faith throughout much of Obama’s presidency and wouldn’t vote anything in if he backed it. The US has been one of the largest producers of emissions, the largest for a long time, and most of the world understandably needed to see our commitment. Which didn’t happen because our senate was unwilling to give Obama anything.
So while it isn’t a treaty, my own words and you’re correct on that. It is/was an extremely important accord that should have/should still be progressed to a treaty and the US should push the issue forward. There are other factors to discuss here and I am not trying to oversimplify it, though a message does tend to pull for that.
The simplicity is that Obama never submitted it to the Senate, so it’s not a “treaty,” dipshit.
Also, the US under Trump lowered CO2 emissions while Germany and others didn’t. Angela Hitler in Germany wants to buy more carbon fuel from Putin and enrich him, ffs.
Are you retarded?
Amazing how many people are totally ignorant of the fact that even despite our booming economy in 2018 and 2019 we were reducing our emissions while other European countries were not.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
It's not just semantics. Claiming that we reneged on a "treaty" is a big deal. Claiming that Trump opted out of an agreement Obama signed onto that didn't limit any other country's emissions but did limit ours, isn't quite the same thing. Why should Trump have to follow an agreement Obama made? If Obama wanted to give his agreements weight and longevity he should have submitted them to the Senate.
This is a totally fair stance with many good points. It doesn’t take into account several factors though. The senate operated largely under bad faith throughout much of Obama’s presidency and wouldn’t vote anything in if he backed it. The US has been one of the largest producers of emissions, the largest for a long time, and most of the world understandably needed to see our commitment. Which didn’t happen because our senate was unwilling to give Obama anything.
So while it isn’t a treaty, my own words and you’re correct on that. It is/was an extremely important accord that should have/should still be progressed to a treaty and the US should push the issue forward. There are other factors to discuss here and I am not trying to oversimplify it, though a message does tend to pull for that.
Yes, by not rubber stamping everything Obama wanted they were operating under "bad faith." He couldn't have gotten 2/3 of the Senate to ratify it because it was a shitty agreement that only limited US emissions and allowed our competitors to continue their emissions and in some cases, to increase their emissions. The only person operating in "bad faith" was Obama and the US media who blatantly lied or omitted what the Paris Agreement actually did.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
It's not just semantics. Claiming that we reneged on a "treaty" is a big deal. Claiming that Trump opted out of an agreement Obama signed onto that didn't limit any other country's emissions but did limit ours, isn't quite the same thing. Why should Trump have to follow an agreement Obama made? If Obama wanted to give his agreements weight and longevity he should have submitted them to the Senate.
This is a totally fair stance with many good points. It doesn’t take into account several factors though. The senate operated largely under bad faith throughout much of Obama’s presidency and wouldn’t vote anything in if he backed it. The US has been one of the largest producers of emissions, the largest for a long time, and most of the world understandably needed to see our commitment. Which didn’t happen because our senate was unwilling to give Obama anything.
So while it isn’t a treaty, my own words and you’re correct on that. It is/was an extremely important accord that should have/should still be progressed to a treaty and the US should push the issue forward. There are other factors to discuss here and I am not trying to oversimplify it, though a message does tend to pull for that.
The simplicity is that Obama never submitted it to the Senate, so it’s not a “treaty,” dipshit.
Also, the US under Trump lowered CO2 emissions while Germany and others didn’t. Angela Hitler in Germany wants to buy more carbon fuel from Putin and enrich him, ffs.
Are you retarded?
Amazing how many people are totally ignorant of the fact that even despite our booming economy in 2018 and 2019 we were reducing our emissions while other European countries were not.
Now I specifically said I was trying to avoid oversimplifying it and here you are doing it. Emission trends are not just a simple up or down number and global politics are not just a simple “good or bad” for the US. A global movement toward reduced emissions with the US leading the way was/still can be a good thing for both the world and the US.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
It's not just semantics. Claiming that we reneged on a "treaty" is a big deal. Claiming that Trump opted out of an agreement Obama signed onto that didn't limit any other country's emissions but did limit ours, isn't quite the same thing. Why should Trump have to follow an agreement Obama made? If Obama wanted to give his agreements weight and longevity he should have submitted them to the Senate.
This is a totally fair stance with many good points. It doesn’t take into account several factors though. The senate operated largely under bad faith throughout much of Obama’s presidency and wouldn’t vote anything in if he backed it. The US has been one of the largest producers of emissions, the largest for a long time, and most of the world understandably needed to see our commitment. Which didn’t happen because our senate was unwilling to give Obama anything.
So while it isn’t a treaty, my own words and you’re correct on that. It is/was an extremely important accord that should have/should still be progressed to a treaty and the US should push the issue forward. There are other factors to discuss here and I am not trying to oversimplify it, though a message does tend to pull for that.
Yes, by not rubber stamping everything Obama wanted they were operating under "bad faith." He couldn't have gotten 2/3 of the Senate to ratify it because it was a shitty agreement that only limited US emissions and allowed our competitors to continue their emissions and in some cases, to increase their emissions. The only person operating in "bad faith" was Obama and the US media who blatantly lied or omitted what the Paris Agreement actually did.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
It's not just semantics. Claiming that we reneged on a "treaty" is a big deal. Claiming that Trump opted out of an agreement Obama signed onto that didn't limit any other country's emissions but did limit ours, isn't quite the same thing. Why should Trump have to follow an agreement Obama made? If Obama wanted to give his agreements weight and longevity he should have submitted them to the Senate.
This is a totally fair stance with many good points. It doesn’t take into account several factors though. The senate operated largely under bad faith throughout much of Obama’s presidency and wouldn’t vote anything in if he backed it. The US has been one of the largest producers of emissions, the largest for a long time, and most of the world understandably needed to see our commitment. Which didn’t happen because our senate was unwilling to give Obama anything.
So while it isn’t a treaty, my own words and you’re correct on that. It is/was an extremely important accord that should have/should still be progressed to a treaty and the US should push the issue forward. There are other factors to discuss here and I am not trying to oversimplify it, though a message does tend to pull for that.
The simplicity is that Obama never submitted it to the Senate, so it’s not a “treaty,” dipshit.
Also, the US under Trump lowered CO2 emissions while Germany and others didn’t. Angela Hitler in Germany wants to buy more carbon fuel from Putin and enrich him, ffs.
Are you retarded?
Amazing how many people are totally ignorant of the fact that even despite our booming economy in 2018 and 2019 we were reducing our emissions while other European countries were not.
Now I specifically said I was trying to avoid oversimplifying it and here you are doing it. Emission trends are not just a simple up or down number and global politics are not just a simple “good or bad” for the US. A global movement toward reduced emissions with the US leading the way was/still can be a good thing for both the world and the US.
The US is leading the way. That was the point that flew over your head
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
It's not just semantics. Claiming that we reneged on a "treaty" is a big deal. Claiming that Trump opted out of an agreement Obama signed onto that didn't limit any other country's emissions but did limit ours, isn't quite the same thing. Why should Trump have to follow an agreement Obama made? If Obama wanted to give his agreements weight and longevity he should have submitted them to the Senate.
This is a totally fair stance with many good points. It doesn’t take into account several factors though. The senate operated largely under bad faith throughout much of Obama’s presidency and wouldn’t vote anything in if he backed it. The US has been one of the largest producers of emissions, the largest for a long time, and most of the world understandably needed to see our commitment. Which didn’t happen because our senate was unwilling to give Obama anything.
So while it isn’t a treaty, my own words and you’re correct on that. It is/was an extremely important accord that should have/should still be progressed to a treaty and the US should push the issue forward. There are other factors to discuss here and I am not trying to oversimplify it, though a message does tend to pull for that.
Yes, by not rubber stamping everything Obama wanted they were operating under "bad faith." He couldn't have gotten 2/3 of the Senate to ratify it because it was a shitty agreement that only limited US emissions and allowed our competitors to continue their emissions and in some cases, to increase their emissions. The only person operating in "bad faith" was Obama and the US media who blatantly lied or omitted what the Paris Agreement actually did.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
I’m confused. Is this one of those times when are supposed to value Europe’s opinion and follow their lead, or not? I thought we weren’t supposed to give a fuck about what Europe does.
Clean elections are worth noting. The fact your team is resisting any attempt at election reform as “voter suppression” tells me you’re a fascist piece of shit who is cool with blatant election fraud.
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.
I’ve literally never said don’t follow Europe, you dunce. What’s with your strawman, other than to enable election fraud in the USA?
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?
No I don’t believe it had been voted on. Though it’s debatable whether or not it needs to be voted on. Your point?
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Lol argue semantics when you have no ground to stand on. Correct it’s not an official “treaty” nor does it need to be. We good now, you guys support it now that it’s an accord.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
It's not just semantics. Claiming that we reneged on a "treaty" is a big deal. Claiming that Trump opted out of an agreement Obama signed onto that didn't limit any other country's emissions but did limit ours, isn't quite the same thing. Why should Trump have to follow an agreement Obama made? If Obama wanted to give his agreements weight and longevity he should have submitted them to the Senate.
This is a totally fair stance with many good points. It doesn’t take into account several factors though. The senate operated largely under bad faith throughout much of Obama’s presidency and wouldn’t vote anything in if he backed it. The US has been one of the largest producers of emissions, the largest for a long time, and most of the world understandably needed to see our commitment. Which didn’t happen because our senate was unwilling to give Obama anything.
So while it isn’t a treaty, my own words and you’re correct on that. It is/was an extremely important accord that should have/should still be progressed to a treaty and the US should push the issue forward. There are other factors to discuss here and I am not trying to oversimplify it, though a message does tend to pull for that.
The simplicity is that Obama never submitted it to the Senate, so it’s not a “treaty,” dipshit.
Also, the US under Trump lowered CO2 emissions while Germany and others didn’t. Angela Hitler in Germany wants to buy more carbon fuel from Putin and enrich him, ffs.
Are you retarded?
Amazing how many people are totally ignorant of the fact that even despite our booming economy in 2018 and 2019 we were reducing our emissions while other European countries were not.
Now I specifically said I was trying to avoid oversimplifying it and here you are doing it. Emission trends are not just a simple up or down number and global politics are not just a simple “good or bad” for the US. A global movement toward reduced emissions with the US leading the way was/still can be a good thing for both the world and the US.
The US is leading the way. That was the point that flew over your head
I was right as usual. You're a very dense person.
Exactly, we didn't need to sign onto the Paris "Treaty" in order to do the right thing.
Comments
Just a few days ago I posted how the Pentagon wants more troops in Iraq for “NATO.”
Nah, it’s Chickenhawk wartime again and troops are being deployed.
Valuing opinions is fag talk. Not surprising
The UN and the Paris accords are inf act, irrelevant. Always. If you would like to discuss them start a thread that will THUD
What a dick. Move to Uganda asshat, you will then miss what you had. Admit you are a racist, bigoted POS and save us all of your self cleansing bullshit.
FFS.........another self loathing, America hating rat. I am sick of these pussies.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
Given the derisive attitude toward European opinions in general on this board I found it odd and potentially hypocritical that this particular French opinion was valued. That is all.
So while it isn’t a treaty, my own words and you’re correct on that. It is/was an extremely important accord that should have/should still be progressed to a treaty and the US should push the issue forward. There are other factors to discuss here and I am not trying to oversimplify it, though a message does tend to pull for that.
Also, the US under Trump lowered CO2 emissions while Germany and others didn’t. Angela Hitler in Germany wants to buy more carbon fuel from Putin and enrich him, ffs.
Are you retarded?
I was right as usual. You're a very dense person.