• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tariffs on U.S. Exports

jdog said:
Actually, what he is proposing is a change to the tax law on corporations that would level the playing field, but then I would not expect you to accurately portrait the issue.
Click to expand...

Why do feel the need to include the portion of you posts following the second coma?

Are you saying the Trump administration does not intend to rescind on U.S. goals as agreed to by signing the Paris Agreement? Trump has stated his intention to eliminate all U.S. funding of U.N. efforts intended to help 3rd world nations prepare for rising seas and other effects of a warming world.

His position on this has nothing to do with taxation on corporations. His position on all things climate change is to dismantle anything to do with it, from NASA to the EPA to the U.N.
 
Russell797 said:
Why do feel the need to include the portion of you posts following the second coma?

Are you saying the Trump administration does not intend to rescind on U.S. goals as agreed to by signing the Paris Agreement? Trump has stated his intention to eliminate all U.S. funding of U.N. efforts intended to help 3rd world nations prepare for rising seas and other effects of a warming world.

His position on this has nothing to do with taxation on corporations. His position on all things climate change is to dismantle anything to do with it, from NASA to the EPA to the U.N.
Click to expand...

In case you are not familiar with the process, the President has only the power to "negotiate" treaties. Those negotiations must then be passed by 2/3rds of the Senate.
Global Warming is being sold to the people by the same people who brought you GLOBALIZTION and their answer for it is to tax the peasants and to only allow themselves the privilege to burn fossil fuels.

The global warming tin foil hats are simply working for the Oligarchs who want to enslave the rest of the peoples of the world. When the global warming chicken little's begin to advocate common sense ideas to deal with mankind's indiscretions instead of solutions aimed at ripping the last vestiges of freedom from the people then perhaps they can claim a tiny splinter of credibility.

The best solution of course is to reduce the worlds population drastically by mandating substantial monetary incentives for people to not reproduce and lay the costs of such programs on the worlds obscenely wealthy. Of course you will never hear the chicken little's advocating for that because it is contrary to the interests of the Oligarchs whom they work for.
 
jdog said:
In case you are not familiar with the process, the President has only the power to "negotiate" treaties. Those negotiations must then be passed by 2/3rds of the Senate.
Global Warming is being sold to the people by the same people who brought you GLOBALIZTION and their answer for it is to tax the peasants and to only allow themselves the privilege to burn fossil fuels.

The global warming tin foil hats are simply working for the Oligarchs who want to enslave the rest of the peoples of the world. When the global warming chicken little's begin to advocate common sense ideas to deal with mankind's indiscretions instead of solutions aimed at ripping the last vestiges of freedom from the people then perhaps they can claim a tiny splinter of credibility.

The best solution of course is to reduce the worlds population drastically by mandating substantial monetary incentives for people to not reproduce and lay the costs of such programs on the worlds obscenely wealthy. Of course you will never hear the chicken little's advocating for that because it is contrary to the interests of the Oligarchs whom they work for.
Click to expand...

Your second sentence is nonsense. What taxes on the peasants? That's if a carbon tax were put into place or a cap and trade scheme were enacted. They have not been and probable will not be. What needs to be done is to drastically reduce reliance on fossil fuels over time and on a global scale.

The remainder of your post goes down hill from there. All conspiracy theory with not a shred of evidence in support. The solution is not to reduce the world's population, although that would obviously help a lot of issues, not just global warming. The solution is to stop pumping over 30 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each and every year.
 
jdog said:
In case you are not familiar with the process, the President has only the power to "negotiate" treaties. Those negotiations must then be passed by 2/3rds of the Senate. ...
Click to expand...

USA’s international agreements:

USA trade agreements such as those with the WTO and the NATA are not treaties approved by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. Only a tenth of our government's international agreements are treaties. We have no trade agreements with the federal legal status our constitution grants to treaties.

JDog, USA’s trade agreements, (executive, and congressional-executive or other agreements passed with congressional consent) are all then subject to mutually agreed modifications among the participating nations. The president alone and through the U.S. Secretary of State have complete jurisdictions of such USA side of the negotiations.
If participants cannot reach agreement regarding modifications, the agreements contain explicit provisions for participants granting six months’ notice of their intention to withdraw from the agreement.

[President Carter alone exercised a treaty’s withdrawal clause. Senator Goldwater attempted a federal court challenge to the president’s unilateral action. (The U.S. Senate itself did not formally request the President’s act be reviewed by the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court declared it to be a political matter and declined to hear the case. Similarly, President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew USA’s participation from an ABM Treaty].

Regarding international agreements and foreign affairs, the president of the United States has extraordinary powers.

USA’s adoption of the proposed unilateral trade policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificate” policy require congressional acceptance because it requires modification of federal law.
[It requires government’s issuance of transferable Import certificates to complying exporters and mandates importers to surrender such certificates for the assessed value of their goods entering the USA]. It does not require a constitutional amendment or a super majority.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Russell797 said:
Your second sentence is nonsense. What taxes on the peasants? That's if a carbon tax were put into place or a cap and trade scheme were enacted. They have not been and probable will not be. What needs to be done is to drastically reduce reliance on fossil fuels over time and on a global scale.

The remainder of your post goes down hill from there. All conspiracy theory with not a shred of evidence in support. The solution is not to reduce the world's population, although that would obviously help a lot of issues, not just global warming. The solution is to stop pumping over 30 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each and every year.
Click to expand...

So how exactly do you stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere without ceasing all function that make human life possible? All living beings pump CO2 into the atmosphere just by their very existence.
 
I'm Supposn said:
USA’s international agreements:

USA trade agreements such as those with the WTO and the NATA are not treaties approved by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. Only a tenth of our government's international agreements are treaties. We have no trade agreements with the federal legal status our constitution grants to treaties.

JDog, USA’s trade agreements, (executive, and congressional-executive or other agreements passed with congressional consent) are all then subject to mutually agreed modifications among the participating nations. The president alone and through the U.S. Secretary of State have complete jurisdictions of such USA side of the negotiations.
If participants cannot reach agreement regarding modifications, the agreements contain explicit provisions for participants granting six months’ notice of their intention to withdraw from the agreement.

[President Carter alone exercised a treaty’s withdrawal clause. Senator Goldwater attempted a federal court challenge to the president’s unilateral action. (The U.S. Senate itself did not formally request the President’s act be reviewed by the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court declared it to be a political matter and declined to hear the case. Similarly, President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew USA’s participation from an ABM Treaty].

Regarding international agreements and foreign affairs, the president of the United States has extraordinary powers.

USA’s adoption of the proposed unilateral trade policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificate” policy require congressional acceptance because it requires modification of federal law.
[It requires government’s issuance of transferable Import certificates to complying exporters and mandates importers to surrender such certificates for the assessed value of their goods entering the USA]. It does not require a constitutional amendment or a super majority.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...


International agreements are not legally binding and for the most part not worth the paper they are written on..... They are simply more propaganda to feed to the gullible and the week minded.
 
jdog said:
International agreements are not legally binding and for the most part not worth the paper they are written on..... They are simply more propaganda to feed to the gullible and the week minded.
Click to expand...

JDog, when I wrote the United States have no trade agreements with the federal legal status our constitution grants to treaties, you didn’t understand that within our constitution treaties have the full status of anything else mentioned within the United States Constitution?

I doubt if the U.S. congress, (even with a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate) could overcome presidential resistance and repeal a treaty without formally amending the United States Constitution or the Supreme court decreeing that treaty itself to be contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
USA’s international agreements do have federal legal status and USA treaty agreements have the highest, (i.e. constitutional) status under our federal laws.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
jdog said:
So how exactly do you stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere without ceasing all function that make human life possible? All living beings pump CO2 into the atmosphere just by their very existence.
Click to expand...

That statement shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

Living things are part of the carbon cycle operating between the oceans, land and atmosphere. They add no carbon to the cycle by their living and dying, eating and breathing. They use carbon already present in a moving system.

The burning of fossil fuels adds carbon to the cycle from a source which has been sequestered for millions of years. Their use is why the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and oceans is increasing.
 
I'm Supposn said:
JDog, when I wrote the United States have no trade agreements with the federal legal status our constitution grants to treaties, you didn’t understand that within our constitution treaties have the full status of anything else mentioned within the United States Constitution?

I doubt if the U.S. congress, (even with a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate) could overcome presidential resistance and repeal a treaty without formally amending the United States Constitution or the Supreme court decreeing that treaty itself to be contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
USA’s international agreements do have federal legal status and USA treaty agreements have the highest, (i.e. constitutional) status under our federal laws.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Your opinion is irrelevant, the law is in plain print and it says the President can negotiate, but the Senate can approve or disapprove at their discretion. Of course it was also intended that the Senate be under the control of the respective States which was undermined in the Coup of 1913.
 
Russell797 said:
That statement shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

Living things are part of the carbon cycle operating between the oceans, land and atmosphere. They add no carbon to the cycle by their living and dying, eating and breathing. They use carbon already present in a moving system.

The burning of fossil fuels adds carbon to the cycle from a source which has been sequestered for millions of years. Their use is why the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and oceans is increasing.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are really talented at spewing nonsense. Fact is that every warm blooded body on earth consumes oxygen and expels carbon dioxide. Every warm body that farts expels gasses that are far more contributive to greenhouse factors than carbon dioxide.

The truth is we cannot significantly cut carbon dioxide emissions without creating massive poverty and resulting death. The idiotic liberals do not have a clue what is involved in substantially cutting carbon emissions, and are far to simple to realize that the agenda is not to save the planet, it is to enslave its inhabitants. Of course I never met a liberal that did not want to make slaves of their fellow humans.
 
jdog said:
Your opinion is irrelevant, the law is in plain print and it says the President can negotiate, but the Senate can approve or disapprove at their discretion. Of course it was also intended that the Senate be under the control of the respective States which was undermined in the Coup of 1913.
Click to expand...

JDog, the president is the supreme negotiator; he has extraordinary power in regard to foreign relations.
Additionally, presidents in rare instances have terminated international agreements without seeking and/or receiving the congress’s or the senate’s approval.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Russell797 said:
The Trump administration intends to rescind the U.S. commitment to the Paris Climate agreement and pull back monetary support for developing 3rd world nations to deal with the effects of climate change and assist them in a transition to a low carbon economy.

One idea being floated around the more than 100 nations now committed to this effort is to impose tariffs on U.S. imports as a means of compensation. The U.S. is currently the second largest producer of the greenhouse gases which are warming the planet (behind only China) and historically the number one polluter of all time.

What would your reaction be to these tariffs being placed on U.S. goods?
Click to expand...

There should be no monetary support when they do this to get it:

Refworld | Uganda: 20,000 people expelled from their land for carbon trading scheme
 
Russell797 said:
That statement shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

Living things are part of the carbon cycle operating between the oceans, land and atmosphere. They add no carbon to the cycle by their living and dying, eating and breathing. They use carbon already present in a moving system.

The burning of fossil fuels adds carbon to the cycle from a source which has been sequestered for millions of years. Their use is why the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and oceans is increasing.
Click to expand...

Burning fossil fuels is part of a longer term carbon cycle.

What is your point?
 
jdog said:
Wow, you are really talented at spewing nonsense. Fact is that every warm blooded body on earth consumes oxygen and expels carbon dioxide. Every warm body that farts expels gasses that are far more contributive to greenhouse factors than carbon dioxide.

The truth is we cannot significantly cut carbon dioxide emissions without creating massive poverty and resulting death. The idiotic liberals do not have a clue what is involved in substantially cutting carbon emissions, and are far to simple to realize that the agenda is not to save the planet, it is to enslave its inhabitants. Of course I never met a liberal that did not want to make slaves of their fellow humans.
Click to expand...

And there we have it folks. A brilliant response if there ever was one.
 
I'm Supposn said:
JDog, the president is the supreme negotiator; he has extraordinary power in regard to foreign relations.
Additionally, presidents in rare instances have terminated international agreements without seeking and/or receiving the congress’s or the senate’s approval.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

What the hell is the "supreme negotiator" ? I cannot remember ever seeing that designation anywhere in the Constitution.

The fact is that the President cannot make law, he was not given that power by the Constitution. Any so called "agreement" he makes does not carry the weight of law and is not binding on the American people.
Only Congress can create law which is binding upon the American people.
 
Russell797 said:
And there we have it folks. A brilliant response if there ever was one.
Click to expand...

Your lack of rebuttal will be accepted as your surrender..... surrender accepted.
 
jdog said:
What the hell is the "supreme negotiator" ? I cannot remember ever seeing that designation anywhere in the Constitution.

The fact is that the President cannot make law, he was not given that power by the Constitution. Any so called "agreement" he makes does not carry the weight of law and is not binding on the American people.
Only Congress can create law which is binding upon the American people.
Click to expand...

JDog, if only the president of the United States has the absolute veto power over any proposed modification or the creation of any international agreements involving any USA governments’ participation within international nations’ agreements, and some presidents have exercised their presumed individual power to terminate such existing agreements, it is reasonable to state that the president of the United States has the power of USA’s “supreme” national negotiator regarding all such agreements with other nations’ governments.

International agreements that the USA participates within are legally binding upon the United States federal government and thus to some extent legally bind all other USA governments and other entities. That’s certainly within the U. S. Constitution and (as you expessed it), carries the weight of law.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
JDog, if only the president of the United States has the absolute veto power over any proposed modification or the creation of any international agreements involving any USA governments’ participation within international nations’ agreements, and some presidents have exercised their presumed individual power to terminate such existing agreements, it is reasonable to state that the president of the United States has the power of USA’s “supreme” national negotiator regarding all such agreements with other nations’ governments.

International agreements that the USA participates within are legally binding upon the United States federal government and thus to some extent legally bind all other USA governments and other entities. That’s certainly within the U. S. Constitution and (as you expessed it), carries the weight of law.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...


Your talking jibberish and you know it... If you can quote the passage in the Constitution the bestows such power then do it... otherwise shut up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom