Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Mail-in ballots and voting machines banned in France
Comments
-
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.NorthwestFresh said:Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case. -
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
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.Duckwithabone said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
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?
-
Fuck offDuckwithabone said:
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.RaceBannon said:
The point wasn't about valuing opinions of anyone. France took an action and the discussion was about that actionDuckwithabone said:
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.RaceBannon said:
You brought up Europe and treaties and other bullshit to deflect from the topicDuckwithabone said:
I’d say sticking to the point of the topic but that’s a lost cause.SFGbob said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Dumb as a rock
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
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. -
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.Duckwithabone said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
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. -
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.NorthwestFresh said:
The simplicity is that Obama never submitted it to the Senate, so it’s not a “treaty,” dipshit.Duckwithabone said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
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? -
Fucking everything you post is a THUD.....TheKobeStopper said:This is why is only eat FREEDOM fries.
-
SFGbob said:
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.Duckwithabone said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
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.
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
The simplicity is that Obama never submitted it to the Senate, so it’s not a “treaty,” dipshit.Duckwithabone said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
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? -
The US is leading the way. That was the point that flew over your headDuckwithabone said:SFGbob said:
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.Duckwithabone said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
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.
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
The simplicity is that Obama never submitted it to the Senate, so it’s not a “treaty,” dipshit.Duckwithabone said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
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. -
Exactly, we didn't need to sign onto the Paris "Treaty" in order to do the right thing.RaceBannon said:
The US is leading the way. That was the point that flew over your headDuckwithabone said:SFGbob said:
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.Duckwithabone said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
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.
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
The simplicity is that Obama never submitted it to the Senate, so it’s not a “treaty,” dipshit.Duckwithabone said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
It’s not semantics. It’s in the Constitution, you goof. If the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s literally not a “treaty.”Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
It’s not a “treaty” if it’s not ratified by the Senate. Hence it being an “accord.”Duckwithabone said:
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?SFGbob said:
When was the Paris climate "treaty" voted on by the US Senate?Duckwithabone said:
Glad to know you’re on board with the Paris climate treaty, UN, and WHO.NorthwestFresh said:
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?Duckwithabone said:
Oh so we do follow Europe when it works for your views. Otherwise fuck those guys and their global treaties, pass the freedom fries.NorthwestFresh said:
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.Duckwithabone said: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.
Glad to be of help, Rambo.
Come see Duck with a Bonehead destroyed by facts.
“Semantics” are actually literal differences in this case.
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.
