Multijono86

You lost this contest. It wasn't even close. Hands down. Not because of lack of commitment. But because of lack of intelligence. You're command of the relevant facts was on par with any other idiotic ideologue. To help us all, don't breed.

195 countries have signed on. The US is pulling out by spring of 2019. They will probably renegotiate terms that are more inline with its national interests. And again, simply put, the sheer number of countries signing onto an agreement is not indicative of the fairness of the terms that a former administration signed up to. I provided some facts before, you obviously believe in alternative facts. Carry on.

No, I didn't. Paraphrased synopsis: You: "Paris is not a binding contract". Me: "America signed onto it. As long as America is signed onto it, it is binding (like anything else)". You: "durr durr durr". Me: "You're dumb, go home."

If you sign a contract, it is binding. Much like when you borrow money from the bank, you have to pay it back. The Paris accord is voluntary as far as being committed. Ie: "wanna leave? no problem. there's exit clauses". If you're a signatory nation, then it is binding. With the Paris accord, signatory nations agree to control/reduce emissions by a certain rate as a contribution to lowering overall global pollution. Please, read a book or something.

Fact: Individual companies cannot sign a binding contract on behalf of a nation on the international level. Stop making things up. Elected governments represent people, not companies.

Obama inherited nothing different than what Harding inherited in 1920-21 and what Reagan inherited in 1981-1982. Reagan cut taxes and regulation massively and the economy boomed. He spent like crazy on defence but as a % of % of GDP, it didn't even move the needle. So it worked out. Harding cut spending and taxes and turned a depression around in 2yrs (far better than any Keynesian clown). Then there was the roaring 20s afterwards. Now, Obama printed 700B, doubled the debt from 10T to 20T, kept interests rates at near 0% and as a consequence, 8yrs of Obama never saw greater than 2% gdp growth. The American average is about 3%...so he fell short by 33%. And yes, this is about Trudeau being totally awful. The drivel that I replied to had mentioned the US and a glib "how about Trump" comment. That's why that's there. You haven't used any facts or statistics at all. You're a waste of my time.

You didn't answer any of the questions put forward. Lets clarify this a bit more. The Paris accord is entirely voluntary (fact). As such, Trump is free to pull American money out of it as he sees fit, just as Obama signed them up to it (fact). China is accountable for 29.5% of global CO2 (Canada at 1.6%, USA at 14.3%, EU at 9.6%) and is building coal powered plants at a rate of appx 150/yr. The number of countries that sign an agreement do not make the goals of the agreement actually possible or economically feasible (see: Kyoto Protocol or Trudeau campaigning hard on environmentalism and then just simply keeping the previous Conservative commitments and claiming that all is well). By your logic, because the UN appoints a Saudi to lead the commission on human rights means they'll stop throwing gays off buildings. Trying to smear me as a "climate denier" because you don't have any facts is a crock. Use facts and not baseless rhetoric.

45% of Canadians want a change in government and Liberals and Conservatives are statistically tied (Sun and the Star published it). I think the Honeymoon is over. With regards to the USA. Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and was very unpopular through 1981-1982. When he cut taxes and regulations, the US economy boomed with 7.1% growth and unemployment began to evaporate. He was re-elected and absolutely crushed Walter Mondale in 1984. Given that Obama had 2% or less GDP growth for 8yrs (a worst in American history), if Trump can deliver economic growth, he's a shoe-in in 2020 (being an incumbent Republican is enough to be a shoe-in, but its Trump, so I'll err on the side of safety). Start thinking of polls as surveys of likely voters. Then know that turnouts are very low in USA (53% voted in 2016 vs. 69% in 2015 Canadian federal elections), getting a message out there (which Trump did) proved more effective than trying to split hairs in different ideological camps. That election was won by unlikely voters.

I would say that he attended all these meetings and summits and accomplished absolutely nothing worth the price of admission. The burden of proof is on you to prove 2 things: a) these meetings have a provable causal link to curbing global warming and b ) if so, when, by how much, and at what cost? Anyways, he's nothing but platitudes with socks and hair that reads a script with no original thought at all. Why on earth our government would demonize and kneecap our industries while self flagellating over our mere 1.6% of global CO2 emissions?. Especially, when Canadian advancements in carbon capture and sequestration are top notch in the world. Also, when he rambles on about Canada being important in the world (or any other bullshit about global citizenry), he is simply wrong. Canada is, and has been since 1867, a democratic nation state. It is not a "post national state"; or any template for one. In economic terms, we're about 2.2% of world GDP. Insignificant. The economy of Texas is almost as big as the economy of Canada. I would ask you to ask yourself, has Trudeau "done" anything worth a 350K/yr salary? The government isn't any more transparent, election formats didn't change, 1 MP and 1 staffer have resigned for sexual misconduct and something else that hasn't been divulged. His "tax cut for the middle class" is a pointless pittance of about 22$/wk to someone making 90K/yr (I make more than that and I'd rather that the feds not blow the 320M on that level of weak tax cut...go Reagan style or go home). Sure, granted, Bev Oda (a Conservative MP) spent 16$ on some orange juice. But, Amarjeet Sohi (a Liberal MP) spent over 800K on reno-ing his office. But, Katie Telford and Gerald Butts (un-elected bureaucrats) expensed over 200K to move to Ottawa to join the lovely high cost/low efficiency borg of a federal government. Go down the list and you'll find more examples of this government just pissing away money at a scale much greater than the Harper Conservatives could ever dream of. It isn't even a liberal party in the proper, English, sense. Its a socialist party like the one in Ontario. That might explain why NDP voters flocked to the Liberal party in the 2015 election. If you don't believe me, look at the results on wikipedia. I won't say something like "Harper was better", while that is absolutely true, it's not the point here. The point is that you're ideologically married to Trudeau and you seem to think of him going to meetings as actually constructive work on global warming because your standards are set too damn low. In summary, as Donald Trump has said: "WRONG."