it's the unenforceability of it. So, we say we are going to reduce carbon emissions and then don't so what all that will happen is someone will wag a finger at us. Is this really the kind of agreement you want? One with no teeth?

That's my question.

The deal itself is not the problem. It needs enforceability. I guess you are fine with agreements that can be broken though without compunction.

Meaning 67 votes. They are not there - so any deal that has them is DOA in the Senate.

I am seeing him in a whole new light.

He spends every waking hour bad mouthing somebody.

lol

Good for you!

What a strange reply.

Apparently if you rec someone's thread, you're their associate!

Anyways, would you like to answer the question I posed in my OP?

How would Bernie have gotten a better climate deal with the nearly 200 countries?

I don't encourage the use of logical fallacies, especially when they're not even original.

to agree to a better deal.

That's Bernie problem.

He shits on things without offering real solutions.

Kerry did a wonderful job at the climate talks and Sanders says: NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!

I remember that thread, did you rec that one too?

You really miss the meta forum, don't you?

Perhaps you should focus on policy rather than high school gossip.

You can't answer a simple question....what would Bernie have done to get a better climate deal between nearly 200 countries?

You keep bringing up DU threads, DU recommendations and juries.

You're apparently incapable of discussing what Bernie would have done to get a better agreement in Paris, so you're essentially changing the subject and focusing on meta rather than policy solutions.

All Sanders has done is say the deal isn't enough. Period. It's not a solution.

Nothing personal but I've been worried about this issue since high school and I don't trust our resident political opportunists who think cheering every time we nod and smile and promise to do something is good enough.

Because that's really done a lot to turn things around.

crappy everyone else does things & how he would change them without ever providing any details on how he would execute said plans. This explains why he is lacking so many congressional endorsements.

Please tell me wtf that even means? That is what we are supposed to take seriously as his plan as president?

Then he goes on to say he's going to create millions of clean energy jobs, we can't even get jobs to repair our crumbling infrastructure which is based in reality even for numbnut republicans. Just these 2 points prove he lacks credibility & is doing nothing but blowing smoke.

Not saying anyone else is doing anything better but let's be realistic.

I just think someone should actually have concrete plans that can actually be enacted. Not bullshit that is about as possible as unicorns & fairy dust.

Some even characterize the agreement as racist as it excludes the needs of and assistance to those who are victims of the west's inaction on the climate thus far.

You just destroyed their new talking point:

Certainly, there were quite a few countries whose reps signed but not happy with the deal. And certainly, there are quite a few western countries who have already taken bolder steps than our leaders in regards to climate change. We led about as weakly in Paris as we do at home.

Bernie (and his supporters) have no problem criticizing everything on the basis that it's not good enough, not bold enough, not strong enough.

But when asked what BS could have accomplished in the alternative, the answer is "Well, how can anyone answer that? It would be pure speculation."

It strikes me that all of Bernie's plans are pure speculation. And the speculation is always that he could have done better, could have gone further, could have accomplished more - without any concrete evidence to back up what that "better" plan might have been.

It's an easy task to say, "I could have done better." Anyone can SAY that. The proof is in the doing, not in the saying.

mechanisms but we do not know because nobody fought for enforcement. What our "leaders" championed is "shall". Who knows what they could have accomplished if they had championed "will".

Obama could have taken charge with one stroke of his administrative pen that is in his power and prerogative to do. No more access to oil or gas or coal on federal lands. Keep it in the ground.

Bernie proposes to do that. So yes. He his proposing, as President, to do it better.

But being as BS will never be president, he can spend his life talking about how much better things would be if he had been.

agitating for such. The west, in their usual racist pattern, put the burden of destruction on the poorest countries in this world.

Bernie rarely says how much better he can make things. He says how much better we can make things.

I remember a presidential candidate who ran on the idea of "yes, WE can" - and once elected, was - and still is - pilloried every day for not working miracles on his own.

"Yes, WE can" quickly became "No, YOU can't".

Bernie will never be president - and it's just as well, because his now staunchest supporters would throw him under the bus the minute it became apparent that he cannot DO anything he's "proposing" to do.

here's my question. The developing countries want the West to cough up $100b a year in climate change aid before agreeing to a better deal. I want you to answer this: how much should each American pay for this aid?

it is about getting the deal done. The deal got DONE. For the first time, an international DEAL GOT DONE on climate change. This is a huuuuuuuge win. All the props to Kerry, Obama, the French diplomats who worked their tails off and every other world leader who stepped up to sign this thing. The door is now open for real progress. The GOP is going to acknowledge climate change is a real thing now, and we can actually DO something more in this country. Because this imperfect deal happened.

Is it less than we need? Yes, absolutely. But it is also more than we ever expected. And it is the beginning, not the end.

So why is Bernie Sanders crapping all over it? What would he have done differently to get the deal DONE? Would he use his moral high ground and engaging smile to MAKE Xi Jinping toe his hard line in the sand? Explained that his deal got the most Facebook likes, so they had to do it or else? Or would he have taken his ball and gone home because the other world leaders would not sit down and shut up while he lectured them about the superiority of his plan? Something else? You tell me. Because he didn't.

Talk, talk, talk, about single-payer to Thom Hartman and his listeners. Talk talk talk about John Conyer' single-payer House bill. Keep talk, talk, talking as a Senator from 2006 through the 2008 elections while the main campaign issue is Healthcare reform. Keep talk, talk, talking while the ACA is being written. Vote for the not-single-payer, public optionless ACA, because that's the best that could be done while in control of the legislative branches of government, while saying that single-payer is preferable.

Keep talk, talk, talking about single-payer through the 2012 elections. Finally get around to introducing his own Senate single-payer bill in 2013, while the House and Senate are in Bagger control.

Bernie: "My castle in the sky is a lot nicer than that 2-bedroom bungalow you built. Look at the drawings. And it's net positive solar powered!"

By focusing on clean energy technology etc. Because, realistically, thats the only thing the US can do.

This was gong to be difficult, no matter who was sitting in the Oval Office.

I don't think the problem was ever just with our negotiating position.

In a political capacity.

It's a miracle we could even be involved given a Republican Congress.

There's no point in his criticism. None whatsoever. These are other countries. Even the magical bully pulpit doesn't work with them.