The Paris Accords

[Inor]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4561928/Trump-announce-decision-climate-change-Thursday.html

Maybe it is because I do not think Trump is a Conservative, but am I the only one that is bothered by the fact that Trump is unilaterally deciding to withdraw from the global warming hoax accord?


The White House insider and director of global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute told DailyMail.com, 'I think you can take it to the bank that he's going withdraw.'

Do not get me wrong, I think withdrawing is the right decision. But it bothers me that a president now seems to have the individual power to make or break treaties for all of us. Doesn't the Senate still have something to say about it or are we now officially a dictatorship?

[dudeman]

The Senate never ratified it. It was on the decree of 0bozo.

[Unclefred]

The Senate never ratified it. It was on the decree of 0bozo.

For that reason alone he should not attend. Undo all that was done by the pretender.

[KnuteFartne]

It's also a non-binding resolution. It's nothing more than empty words (like most Liberal Progressive ideas). China is one of the worst polluters on the planet but as long as they participate in the accord everything is peachy.

Trump needs to fly to Paris and bow out of the Accord in person. And then fly off spewing carbon into the air while dropping baby fur seals and the old McDonald's non recyclable Styrofoam containers from air force one.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[shootbrownelk]

He needs to undo all the job killing executive orders that Moochele's wife...Barry signed into law. The Ethanol "Corn Farmer subsidy" program needs to be eliminated. It uses more water & energy to produce a gallon of ethanol...than the energy the gallon of ethanol produces. It's just a financial prop for the farmers who produce the corn for the ethanol and the ethanol refineries.

[dudeman]

we should be able to make our own ethanol out in the open, not hidden and in the woods.

[Camel923]

Trump pulled out and shot off into the face of libtardia. http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/793621/16 Now watch the left go nuts claiming they were screwed.

[Dwight55]

I, for one, . . . am square in his corner so far.

This "climate change" is nothing more than a cash cow for every thug on the planet who has an "in" with one of the proponents.

Just think in terms of Solyndra, . . . then ask where the millions the US govt poured into that bottomless pit have gone to.

The only hoax perpetrated on the US greater than climate change was Obama himself.

May God bless,
Dwight

[Inor]

I, for one, . . . am square in his corner so far.

This "climate change" is nothing more than a cash cow for every thug on the planet who has an "in" with one of the proponents.

Just think in terms of Solyndra, . . . then ask where the millions the US govt poured into that bottomless pit have gone to.

The only hoax perpetrated on the US greater than climate change was Obama himself.

May God bless,
Dwight

I am fully in favor of getting out of every "climate change" thing on the planet. But that was not my point. My point is, I do not like presidents entering into treaties (like b. hussein obama did getting us into this mess) without the approval of the Senate. And equally, I do not like Trump invalidating treaties without the Senate.

#1 - It is unconstitutional.

#2 - I want to make the Senators go on record with their approval or disapproval of it.

We all bitched (and rightfully so) when obama got us into the climate change treaty because he did it without the Senate (same as with the Iran deal). I do not think it is good for the republic to let this slide just because we agree with the outcome this time. If the republic is going to be restored, we have to follow the constitutional process whether we agree with the result or not.

Just remember, in either 4 or 12 years we are going to have president that is worse than obama. Do you really want him/her/it to be able to commit us to treaties or invalidate existing ones without the consent of the Senate? That is really what is at stake here.

[Camel923]

I am fully in favor of getting out of every "climate change" thing on the planet. But that was not my point. My point is, I do not like presidents entering into treaties (like b. hussein obama did getting us into this mess) without the approval of the Senate. And equally, I do not like Trump invalidating treaties without the Senate.

#1 - It is unconstitutional.

#2 - I want to make the Senators go on record with their approval or disapproval of it.

We all bitched (and rightfully so) when obama got us into the climate change treaty because he did it without the Senate (same as with the Iran deal). I do not think it is good for the republic to let this slide just because we agree with the outcome this time. If the republic is going to be restored, we have to follow the constitutional process whether we agree with the result or not.

Just remember, in either 4 or 12 years we are going to have president that is worse than obama. Do you really want him/her/it to be able to commit us to treaties or invalidate existing ones without the consent of the Senate? That is really what is at stake here.

If it was a real treaty, you would 100 percent correct. It's not because it was never ratified in the Senate as required. Or did I miss that?

[Inor]

If it was a real treaty, you would 100 percent correct. It's not because it was never ratified in the Senate as required. Or did I miss that?

THAT is EXACTLY my point. It was a non-treaty that was being treated as a treaty. If Trump had run it through the Senate, which would have easily passed, he would have pulled us out of the agreement PLUS set a precedent for the next time we get a liberal president (and it will happen again). Doing it the way he did, he legitimized the way obama pushed it through without Senate approval and we do not have a leg to stand on when the next lib-tard gets in office and does something like this.

[Slippy]

Inor,

I think I understand where you are coming from, but my opinion is that since BHO'zo entered into this ridiculous "agreement" with the globalists, he did it unconstitutionally. Hence, it was never a "treaty".

So for Trump withdrawing from a "non-treaty" or withdrawing from an unconstitutional agreement with other nations is good Executive Management. Had it been a real treaty, then he would have had to get Congress' approval.

Very thought provoking thread, Inor.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4561928/Trump-announce-decision-climate-change-Thursday.html

Maybe it is because I do not think Trump is a Conservative, but am I the only one that is bothered by the fact that Trump is unilaterally deciding to withdraw from the global warming hoax accord?



Do not get me wrong, I think withdrawing is the right decision. But it bothers me that a president now seems to have the individual power to make or break treaties for all of us. Doesn't the Senate still have something to say about it or are we now officially a dictatorship?

[hawgrider]

Trump campaigned on the promise he would do this so its another campaign promise kept.

[A Watchman]

My fellow constitutionalists, excellent discussion and points.

[dudeman]

I loved it when he said "I'm the president of Pittsburgh, not Paris".

[Camel923]

THAT is EXACTLY my point. It was a non-treaty that was being treated as a treaty. If Trump had run it through the Senate, which would have easily passed, he would have pulled us out of the agreement PLUS set a precedent for the next time we get a liberal president (and it will happen again). Doing it the way he did, he legitimized the way obama pushed it through without Senate approval and we do not have a leg to stand on when the next lib-tard gets in office and does something like this.


The initial agreement/treaty was an illegitimate act and there for has no legal standing from my prospective. To the require the Senate to pull out would set a president that would ligitimize the chief executive to make and enter treaties without the approval of the Senate. Hense another part of the Consitution nullified with a nod and a wink. Just like the federal income tax which any one with a fifth grade reading ability can clearly see as unconstitutional. Did you ever find evidence that such an act was ever actually ratified by the required number of states? It was short but instituted anyway and made unchallengeable because the IRS has its own court and laws different from anything else.

[Mister Mills]

I am OK with what Trump did, the Paris Accords were a travesty, and a rat trap. They were handcuffs and shackles to America, wrapped up in a disguise, but it looked good to some. I will bet that once you looked into it, it was really bad.

[Inor]

I knew when we elected him that I would be happy with some of the stuff he does, and I have been. I also knew I would be unhappy when he breaks liberal (which he has a tendency to do sometimes). But, he does not seem to break Marxist like the entire democrat party does now.