Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Tenacious D, Jun 2, 2017.
Partial transcript, emphasis (mostly) mine:
The wind story in Texas is becoming increasingly important as well - however subsidies played a key role there.
From the National Review (the conservative bulwark, and cornerstone of the "Never Trump" movement - and who urged people to vote against him.) (Emphasis mine)
Trump Defends the Constitution and the Economy by Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement
Ann Coulter (of late, a notably vigorous critic of some of President Trump's in/actions) on Twitter:
Laura Ingraham (Twitter):
David French, National Review (Twitter):
(Quick aside: Amen!)
Paul Joseph Watson (also a sincere Trump critic, of late) (Twitter):
Jeff Immelt, GE CEO (Twitter) (Emphasis delightfully mine)
(Quick aside: Tenny wept. [with joy])
Did they mention what natural gas replaces that leads to less emissions?
Or where most emissions come from?
Did they respond to the MIT scientists they are citing for their figures, who say they are taking their work completely out of context? Do they officially acknowledge that climate change is a real threat and due to anthropogenic causes?
Until there are more years than nos, the administration has no credibility.
Haven't you heard? Much like sexy, we're bringing it back baby!
The huge lie perpetuated by RWNJs is that the gov't killed coal. Total bullshit. Their precious infallable free market (cheap natural gas) killed coal, and no amount of weeping, wailing nor gnashing of teeth by the right is going to bring it back.
This is probably the biggest issue I have. Trump and his admin need to stop with this coal narrative. They are perpetuating a lie and keeping alive false hope. You legitimately want to help these mining communities? Start by being honest about coal and work on creating viable jobs. It's not only about natural gas either, mining automation will pick up any increased (unlikely) coal production before these miners ever would.
I have no doubt that Trump believes the rhetoric. He has shown that once he makes his mind up on something, no matter the facts, he believes it.
You mean once Fox News makes up his mind.
He hasn't exactly had the most harmonious relationship with that network.
Tenny, what is the binding legal agreement French is,referring to? You haven an amen, so I assume you can be specific.
Is the narrative that it ships American jobs overseas, or that it enriches globalists and keeps the third world poor? It can't be both, please clarify.
The fatal flaw in this statement is the assumption Trump gives a shit about truth. He doesn't.
There was someone in the election that had a plan just like that....
But, you know, emails.
I'm not sure Paris made sense so I'm conflicted on this one. I think that the meaningfulness of the actual commitments was practically zero (meaning no one had to do anything) yet there was a 100B/year financial hook for developed countries to pay to undeveloped. However, I also severely dislike the undertones of how backing out is perceived at home - I.e., screw all of Obama's policies and screw the hoax.
Bump. Tenny, I am hoping you can address my questions.
Separate names with a comma.