Trump signed bill to clean plsstic out of the oceans

[Spaz]

Nope. That's wrong. Let's review the facts.

This bill was passed with unanimous support. If Trump vetoes, the bill still becomes law when Congress overrides.

You so desperately want to give credit to Trump when it has nothing to do with him.

Again irrelevant and emotionally based argument.

It's best you read up on the etymology/uses of 6 sigma processes to full grasp what I'm conveying in my posts.

I've had a head start of 2 decades with processes.

I'll give you time to understand it.

 

[samspade]

Is who deserves the credit not the topic of the OP?

No, it's not. You're the one who mentioned "credit" first.

 

[Fzatf]

i think no one cares about saving earth because we will all die out of old age before something about in environment goes wrong

Clearly some of us do care for future generations. Though it's true some are selfish and only care about their life spans.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Again irrelevant and emotionally based argument.

It's best you read up on the etymology/uses of 6 sigma processes to full grasp what I'm conveying in my posts.

I've had a head start of 2 decades with processes.

I'll give you time to understand it.

Nope, red herring.

No, it's not. You're the one who mentioned "credit" first.

Nope. Why else does the OP want mainstream media to make this a story? What reason?

Clearly some of us do care for future generations. Though it's true some are selfish and only care about their life spans.

Republicans.

Passing something "in spite of" implies they were against it.

Given his record on environmental issues, it's a correct assumption.

 

[samspade]

Nope. Why else does the OP want mainstream media to make this a story? What reason?

Yes, you did. It's there in print, lol. As for your question, I can't speak for the OP or know his reasons.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Yes, you did. It's there in print, lol. As for your question, I can't speak for the OP or know his reasons.

You can make an inference. OP is a Trump supporter. OP wants to know why Trump isn't being praised in the media for signing this bill. Care to answer the question?

What record on environmental issues are you referencing exactly?

From my perspective he is quite reasonable in this arena.

So you think abandoning Paris Climate deal and opening up Federal parks and coastlines to drilling is "reasonable" for the environment?

 

[EyeBRollin]

Did you read the Paris Climate accord deal?

Yes. Are you going to explain how ditching it helps the environment?

 

[EyeBRollin]

The Paris Accord had commitments from the US, to reduce carbon (plant food), but no requirements from other nations to reduce actual pollutants.

Moreover, it stated that the US would transfer money and technology to those other nations.

So tell me what in the Paris Accord actually helped the environment and was fair about it?

You didn't the question at all. Explain how ditching the Paris Climate deal helps the environment.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I did answer the question.

No you didn't. You stated that it reduces carbon emissions with no requirement from other countries to reduce pollutants. That is a statement with no explanation of why removing the entire deal helps the environment. You simply didn't even address the question.

Let me educate you a little further and try to make it easier.

You are under the impression the Paris Accord was focused on the environment. Why do you believe this?

No more deflection. You made the argument that Trump is reasonable for the environment and have still avoided offering any explanation as to how his policies are "reasonable" for the environment. Are you going to explain that statement or not?

 

[EyeBRollin]

Your statement/question asking how dropping out of the Paris Accord was good for the environment presumes the Paris Accord was about the environment, does it not?

I answered the question, however you have a premise that is incorrect, thus you do not see the answer.

Your refusal to discuss the premise demonstrates that you are only interested in the pushing of your narrative, and not furthering your understanding of reality.

What about the Paris Accord makes you think it is about improving the environment?

Mitigating global climate change absolutely falls under the scope of our environment. Either answer the question or just admit your original statement about Trump being "reasonable" for the environment was bull****.

 

[EyeBRollin]

So you believe eliminating plant food (carbon) in the US as opposed to reducing all the massive pollution in Asia is really going to impact the environment?

They aren't mutually exclusive.

You do realize only the US had any obligation, while China is a far larger pollutant?

China is a far larger pollutant yes, but they have been steadily reducing their footprint.

Trump's position was that if we were truly worried about the environment then the Accord would be focused on reducing pollution, not stealing money and technology from the US.

As I said above, mitigating climate change and reducing pollution are not mutually exclusive. That makes Trump's position illogical, thus not "reasonable."

 

[Bible_Belt]

Car-bon tax! Car-bon tax!

 

[EyeBRollin]

1. We can reduce our pollution without transferring money and technology to other countries.

We can, but that would be counterproductive and undermines the entire deal. Without our help, many countries can't reach the global carbon reduction goals.

2. And yet, China had no obligations in the Accord? Why is that?

The Paris Climate Accord focused on global greenhouse gas reduction. It was not specifically a pollution-reduction pact.

3. China contributes far more to the alleged "climate change" than the US does, so again, why did China have no obligations in the agreement?

You're deliberately conflating the issues. China has agreed to reduce it's greenhouse gas emissions and has been doing so.

Because the Accord was not about the environment, it was about transferring money and technology to our competitors.

This is simply wrong for reasons already stated.

Trump was pushing China and the others to reduce their pollution and carbon before he would accept the agreement.

No, the agreement was already in place. Trump took us out of it.

Therefore Trump was far stronger on the environment than the others.

Your logic is so incoherent its a lost cause.

 

[Ranger]

Details matter to pontificators and idealists. To think a president runs the world is really misguided. What new contractors will be making the money and lobbying? How does the money flow? From who to whom?
This is the process.
Obama had both houses and full Democrat/liberal power his first term. No ocean cleaning. No actual work accomplished. Just massive redistribution from the productive to the non productive. So which is it? It’s very obvious the president doesn’t make the difference in anything.

He didn’t even know how to construct a health care system. He called in the insurance companies to devise it. LMAO
Insurance is what has made the problem to start with? LMAO. There’s some real brilliance in that one.
And no, it’s not better than doing nothing. That would make you beyond stupid.

 

[Mike32ct]

The motive is always important. If 100% of Congress unanimously agrees on legislation, why are we giving Trump credit for signing it? His choices are to sign it, or have Congress simply overrule him to which it becomes law anyway.

Maybe he actually agreed with it?

A president can veto a bill he doesn’t like as a “protest” even if he knows he will be overridden.

By your logic, if a majority is in support of a bill, the minority that opposes it should just vote yes (against their principles) because the bill is going to pass anyway.

 

[Spaz]

Nope, red herring.
.

A proactive law that aims to tackle pollution in the ocean and is being spin as something else is a red herring.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Details matter to pontificators and idealists.

Details matter to successful people.

To think a president runs the world is really misguided. What new contractors will be making the money and lobbying? How does the money flow? From who to whom?

Ironically, the OP is arguing that President Trump should be credited with signing this bill. Thanks for proving my point.

Obama had both houses and full Democrat/liberal power his first term. No ocean cleaning. No actual work accomplished.

Full control of Congress for only two years, and accomplished enough to save your ass from the recession that Republican President Bush gave us.

Just massive redistribution from the productive to the non productive. So which is it? It’s very obvious the president doesn’t make the difference in anything.

Thanks for repeating my point about why only Trump cult members want him to get credit for signing this law.

He didn’t even know how to construct a health care system. He called in the insurance companies to devise it. LMAO

The Affordable Care Act was authored by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and implemented by Republican Mitt Romney as governor in Massachusetts.

Insurance is what has made the problem to start with? LMAO. There’s some real brilliance in that one.
And no, it’s not better than doing nothing. That would make you beyond stupid.

.... more mindless chatter.

 

[EyeBRollin]

LOL!! The deal would be we transfer money, technology and reduce our carbon when no other nation has any obligation at all.

False. Stop lying.

Standing against this is somehow against the environment?!?!

Yes.

It is hilarious watching these mental gymnastics.

You can't string together two consistent thoughts.

Trump wanted obligations from other countries and they said no. Trump WANTED the biggest carbon producers (plant feeders) and polluters to commit to their fair share.....and they wouldn't. This means Trump is stronger on the environment than every other nation.

We were already in the Paris Climate Accord. What part of this do you not understand?

 

[EyeBRollin]

Maybe he actually agreed with it?

Rationalization.

A president can veto a bill he doesn’t like as a “protest” even if he knows he will be overridden.

That would be bad politics.

By your logic, if a majority is in support of a bill, the minority that opposes it should just vote yes (against their principles) because the bill is going to pass anyway.

No, logic suggests that President Trump signed the bill because it was a better choice than having his veto overridden.

 

[Spaz]

Looking at the entire process chain, Trump played a role in it and so did countless others. He's part of the process. That's a fact.

Why is that a problem Brolin?