• 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!

Trump Administration Won’t Withdraw from Paris Climate Deal

Can anybody recall a Trump's promise which he has not broken. Trump is worthy the title Liar of 21st century!

Just one, and luckily it was one of the few I hoped he would keep and that is picking a good judge for the SC.
 
I'm not assuming it...Mr. Canete says they are.

You're assuming Mr. Canete said it because you're choosing to believe Reuters. All you're doing is circling back around to "Reuters is true because Mr Canete said it, and Mr. Canete said it because Reuters is true. That's circular logic. So again, why are you accepting Reuters at face value?
 
Paris climate deal: Trump open to staying in, Tillerson says - BBC News

Donald Trump is open to staying in the Paris accord on climate change, his secretary of state has said, just hours after the White House insisted there would be "no change" to US policy.

Rex Tillerson said the US would stay in the agreement "if we can construct a set of terms that we believe is fair".

His comments come despite the White House earlier denying reports it was softening its stance on the accord.

In June Mr Trump announced the US would withdraw from the pact.
 
There is nobody at the helm of our country.

That said, Tillerson is delusional if he believes the rest of the world is going to accept a re-worked agreement just for us.

Yeah well Murca First man!
 
You're assuming Mr. Canete said it because you're choosing to believe Reuters. All you're doing is circling back around to "Reuters is true because Mr Canete said it, and Mr. Canete said it because Reuters is true. That's circular logic. So again, why are you accepting Reuters at face value?

No...not accepting Reuters at face value.

WSJ made the mistake of naming their source. Reuters, when questioning that source, found that WSJ outright lied.

But you know what's amusing as hell? WSJ, today, put out an "update" that is markedly different from their original...lying...story. Whoops!! Busted!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-wont-withdraw-from-paris-climate-deal-1505593922
 
No...not accepting Reuters at face value.

WSJ made the mistake of naming their source. Reuters, when questioning that source, found that WSJ outright lied.

But you know what's amusing as hell? WSJ, today, put out an "update" that is markedly different from their original...lying...story. Whoops!! Busted!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-wont-withdraw-from-paris-climate-deal-1505593922

You say that you're not accepting Reuters at face value, then in the very next sentence you go on to accept Reuters at face value. Why do you accept that they found that WSJ lied? How do you know Reuters isn't making it up?
 
You say that you're not accepting Reuters at face value, then in the very next sentence you go on to accept Reuters at face value. Why do you accept that they found that WSJ lied? How do you know Reuters isn't making it up?

LOL!!

Okay. You decide. Who's lying?

Keep in mind that the WSJ is the one who changed their story.
 
LOL!!

Okay. You decide. Who's lying?

Keep in mind that the WSJ is the one who changed their story.

How do you know the WSJ isn't lying again?
 
Back
Top Bottom