Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Sorry, but this is just an absolute fiction. Trump didn't implement anything to help with climate change. You can say the Paris Accord wasn't good enough, but if you're going to do so, you need to advocate for something bigger and better, not just take your ball and go home. And let's not pretend that Trump left the Paris Accord because it didn't do enough to combat climate change. Re: NATO and defense spending, you have the cause and affect backwards. It's not "the US spends more because NATO countries spend less", it's "NATO countries spend less BECAUSE the US spends more". That is, our Congress (both parties) is in thrall to the defense industry and spends so much that other NATO countries don't need to. And just stop with "the wall". How many new miles of wall did Trump build? How much did he and his cronies grift via GoFundMe and other sources for "the wall"? How'd that work out? How'd "Mexico will pay for it" work out?
I also notice you conveniently ignored the "laws don't apply to us" and "fealty" overriding policies.
The Paris Accord isn't anything. It's a group of countries getting together to put a wish list of climate changes they would like to achieve. If they don't, there is no penalty. I especially love China's plan, they are going to cut their CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 2030. But since their GDP in is expected to rise, their actual total emissions won't go down much, if at all. And if they don't achieve, their target, oh well, nice try guys. Maybe by 2040 you can get there.
Re NATO: Our spending should be irrelevant to what other countries spend.
I will not stop with the wall. How is the border looking these days? How did it look once the wall construction started?
ETA: The last part I ignored don't deserve discussion. It's just a diversion fallacy trying to derail actual discussion.
Last edited by a moderator: