# "How Did We Become Bitter Political Enemies?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112 "2017-06-16T13:23:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/361 "2017-06-19T20:13:42Z")
John Mace wrote: “One thing that keeps the two sides apart is the need to exaggerate, often grossly, the position of the other side. That was an excellent example you gave. I think you hit the nail on the head! That post was purely illustrative of that tendency, right?” And others have mentioned “strawman arguments”. The problem is that every position that reasonable conservatives see as an exaggeration or a strawman is _actually_ held and articulated by what Al Gore once called, in a rare moment of political incorrectness, the “extra chromosome set”. Don’t believe me. Read the comments section on any news article. Those can’t all be liberals posting insane shit just to make righties look bad. I’m not saying that there aren’t extremists on _both_ sides, just that there’s only one side where they’re drivin’ the bus. QED the nomination of donald trump. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/362 "2017-06-19T20:21:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Seems a bit overblown to me. Not “never”. But not often enough. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/363 "2017-06-19T20:23:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Not “never”. But not often enough. I can agree with “not often enough” too. We could be better, no doubt. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/364 "2017-06-19T20:28:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > IIRC, something like 70% of Republicans approved of the decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord. I doubt highly that Trump or the GOP congresscritters are going to undo something supported by 70% of Republicans. However, this isn’t a trait unique to Republicans. [Huge majorities of the populace support voter ID laws](http://www.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx), but Democrats defy the will of the majority and oppose them. By an [almost (but not quite) 2:1 margin Americans are against an assault weapons ban](http://www.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx), and yet there are still a significant number of Democrats in Congress that would vote to institute one. Not every problem is of equal level of complexity and nuance. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/365 "2017-06-19T20:34:11Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > John Mace wrote: “One thing that keeps the two sides apart is the need to exaggerate, often grossly, the position of the other side. That was an excellent example you gave. I think you hit the nail on the head! That post was purely illustrative of that tendency, right?” And others have mentioned “strawman arguments”. > > The problem is that every position that reasonable conservatives see as an exaggeration or a strawman is _actually_ held and articulated by what Al Gore once called, in a rare moment of political incorrectness, the “extra chromosome set”. Don’t believe me. Read the comments section on any news article. Those can’t all be liberals posting insane shit just to make righties look bad. > > I’m not saying that there aren’t extremists on _both_ sides, just that there’s only one side where they’re drivin’ the bus. QED the nomination of donald trump. Not to be pedantic, but comment sections, in general, on any side, on any topic, are what Star Wars might call a “wretched hive of scum and villainy.” ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/366 "2017-06-19T21:40:29Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Not to be pedantic, but comment sections, in general, on any side, on any topic, are what Star Wars might call a “wretched hive of scum and villainy.” That’s not pedantry, that’s a useless generalization – it’s saying “most people are stupid”, which might be some kind of generic truism but isn’t at all helpful. The pertinent fact here is that if one examines these comments on a typical site, in my experience one tends to see a pattern of low information and illiteracy fairly consistently coming much more from one side of the political spectrum than the other. Make of that what you will. Maybe intelligent and informed conservatives are too busy to comment on news sites, but they seem to be a rare species in those places. I think we all remember when Fox News had to ban commenting altogether because of the amount of illiterate hate posts. The problem with being an intelligent conservative is the company one is associated with, and the representation one has in government, like the current Congress and the executive branch, filled with anti-science bigots and self-serving miscreants. When I hear bright conservatives like David Frum or Ben Sasse speak, they always sound vaguely uncomfortable having to deflect embarrassing questions and trying not be forced to defend the crap that their side seems always to be perpetrating. In his recent interview with Bill Maher, Sasse was doing more deflecting than the starship Enterprise in full battle mode. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/367 "2017-06-19T22:01:41Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I hope this is hyperbole and not a sincerely-held belief. **begbert2** : do you believe human extinction is a plausible outcome of climate change? For the record, I actually do. However this would not be a near-term outcome; things would have to get significantly further out of whack than they currently are to disrupt various natural cycles enough to make agriculture impossible. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/368 "2017-06-19T22:01:51Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Where did you ever get the idea I ever ‘declared it a treaty’? I did not. As noted below, you not only implied that the Paris agreement was unquestionably a treaty and must be treated like one, but chastised me for failing to comprehend that ostensibly self-evident fact, and re-iterated that Obama “short-circuited” this treaty process: > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There’s a very good reason that the Constitution requires treaties be ratified by a super-majority of the Senate. It’s so that before the US commits itself to some action on the international stage, we ensure that there’s broad-based and durable domestic support for that action, so that it won’t be undone next election and we won’t look schizophrenic and our allies won’t be left confused and unsure if the US is really committed to a course or action. > > Obama short-circuited that process and committed us to an action that did not have a broad-based and durable base of support in this country. Do you, at least now, understand why that was not a good idea? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The polls that I dug into at the time had what I felt were biased questions, but let me put it this way: if it really enjoyed strong popular support, the kind that drives votes, then the Democrats will win handily in 2018 and again in 2020, and sign us back up for the Paris Accord. If it didn’t, which seems to be the calculus of most Republican elected officials, and President Trump - to the limited extent he may perform political calculus - then they won’t. I suspect that the “strong popular support” you claim is mostly overblown, but perhaps myself and the other Republicans are wrong, and we’ll go down to electoral defeat, and eternal ignominy, in 2018 based off this one decision. I guess we’ll see. I suspect you will go down in 2018, but not primarily because of the Paris accord. As you and many others frequently like to remind us, most of us are not single-issue voters and are willing to take the good with the bad to get policies that are important to us. Indeed, did you not claim that was why you voted for Trump and rather astoundingly reaffirmed that you would do so again? You may have yourself convinced that the majority oppose the withdrawal because the question was biased; you might even convince yourself that the question about impact on the economy was biased, too, wherein more people believe this will be damaging to the economy than good for it. I don’t. I think more people believe Obama than the orange cheeto, for obvious reasons. I also think this policy will be helpful only to small numbers of horrible dead-end jobs like coal mining, and will stifle high-tech jobs and progress in the important clean-energy sector. I would also remind you that we’ve pretty well covered [over here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20247462&postcount=68) the fact that most of the announcement about the withdrawal was a shameless pack of lies, half-truths, and generally very misleading information. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/369 "2017-06-19T22:12:06Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > For the record, I actually do. However this would not be a near-term outcome; things would have to get significantly further out of whack than they currently are to disrupt various natural cycles enough to make agriculture impossible. Humans as a species are pretty resilient, but we’re pretty fragile as individuals in large populations. I think the discussion about human extinction should be put aside in favor of discussions about widespread hardship and suffering in the human species due to climate change, economic impacts, and significant extinctions and loss of biodiversity in non-human species, as well as loss of agricultural capacity and major impacts to food crops. Most of those changes are on the horizon within the next hundred years. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/370 "2017-06-19T22:40:07Z")
Velocity wrote: "Not to be pedantic, but comment sections, in general, on any side, on any topic, are what Star Wars might call a “wretched hive of scum and villainy.” An argument I might have made myself prior to the election of an individual, as President of the United States no less, who represents an ambulatory exemplar of said hive. It is myopic at best to say that such thinking is outside the mainstream when it has taken effective control of one bank. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/371 "2017-06-19T23:26:40Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > As noted below, you not only implied that the Paris agreement was unquestionably a treaty and must be treated like one … Not even close. I implied that he ought to have, that it would have been better that if he had, I never got anywhere near suggesting it “was unquestionably a treaty and must be treated like one”. You are _completely_ misrepresenting my position. > [@wolfpup](#): > > I suspect you will go down in 2018, but not primarily because of the Paris accord. As you and many others frequently like to remind us, most of us are not single-issue voters and are willing to take the good with the bad to get policies that are important to us. Indeed, did you not claim that was why you voted for Trump and rather astoundingly reaffirmed that you would do so again? This sounds an awful lot like an admission that the “strong popular support” is a bit more ephemeral than you were letting on earlier. If it doesn’t change many votes, then it shouldn’t surprise anyone that elected officials in Washington largely ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/372 "2017-06-19T23:37:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But, as the CiC of the military, isn’t it the president’s prerogative to determine how wars are waged? Congress gets to say yeah or nay to the war, but the president decides troop deployments, tactics and strategy. No? > > The president is not, however, CiC of the economy, which is what the Paris Accord dealt with. [https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/175/1319.htm](https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/175/1319.htm) There are three basic tests of whether an international agreement may be concluded as an executive agreement. They are: does the President have the authority to conclude the agreement under his constitutional authority? Or his statutory authority? Or in keeping with other existing treaty commitments? I have not examined the Paris Accord carefully in these respects, but it seems totally plausible that the Accord is consistent with US commitments under the UNFCCC. Again, I’m not vouching for that argument, but it has been made and on the face of it seems reasonable. Contrast this to **HurricaneDitka** ’s theory on foreign relations: if it is important, it ought to be a treaty. This facile argument overlooks the obvious cases in which a President can make international agreements of great consequence while correctly relying on the three tests mentioned above. And I pointed out one agreement that has a lot more significance to the US that was not negotiated as a treaty. It is simply political posturing to argue that a non-treaty that had a direct impact on whether many, many thousands of troops risking their lives in Iraq is somehow less of a deal than a non-treaty that allows signatories to set voluntary targets for carbon reductions that are enforced only to the extent that the state wishes to make itself pay any penalties. Of course, I have very little doubt in my mind that **HD** ’s position on this matter is heavily influenced by blatant partisanship, as opposed to the merits of the matter. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/373 "2017-06-19T23:49:47Z")
here’s a question for all those who gave up being civil to Republicans because they voted a “misogynist, racist, internet troll” President. What exactly was their option? Let’s pretend for a second that I was a Republican (because I don’t want to put any words in the mouths of anyone else) and I didn’t like Trump any better than you. And I didn’t vote for him in the primary. And I was just as appalled at his “grab 'em by the pussy” tape as you were. Come Nov 8, just what were my options? He’s on the ballot. Let’s say I am in favor of sensible immigration reform which includes stepped up deportation of people who are here illegally, and stronger measures to prevent possible terrorists from entering this country. I’m for better health care options for more Americans, but I believe that the federal govt overstepped its authority with the ACA. I recognize that man has had some roll in effecting the climate, but I do not believe it’s as dire as **some** scientists claim, and I’m not willing to risk our economy on untested and ineffective technology shifts. Laws restricting who can purchase guns and what kind of guns they have access to are not going to take away the problem of violence we have here in America. If I hold all these reasonable positions, what exactly am I to do? On my ballot there are 4 choices for President. Should I vote for the Democrat? It would be nice to have a woman for President; but this particular woman has said she will try to enact legislation that would continue to move away from the positions I have enumerated above. Should I vote for the Green Party Candidate or Libertarian? Well the Libertarian is closer to my political view, but either candidate is unlikely to win. So, I’m stuck with the odious choice of Donald Trump, who I may consider a wreck of a human being, but he has promised to concentrate on the issues I think are important. Do you really believe Republicans should have turned their backs on their beliefs because of him? Did you really think they would have? If the shoe was on the other foot, would you? mc mc ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/374 "2017-06-20T00:05:48Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well what do you expect? The whole point of the argument is that I have _no fucking clue_ how to reach people like you. Learning to compromise can be tough. It requires people who are willing to commit to an effort to reach a compromise. Not everyone can make that effort. A “My way or the highway” stance will not lead to a successful compromise. Name-calling solves little. Use of terms such as facists, loons, wingnuts, nazis, etc. all but guarentee that no compromise will be reached. In a democracy, when no compromise is possible, or desired, the only legal option is to outvote your opponents. But how do political parties increase the desire of voters to vote for their candidates? What compromises are the political parties willing to make? Especially if the political parties are unwilling to compromise? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/375 "2017-06-20T00:08:07Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > I recognize that man has had some roll in effecting the climate, but I do not believe it’s as dire as **some** scientists claim, and I’m not willing to risk our economy on untested and ineffective technology shifts. You have it the other way, **some** report that there is no need to do anything, and I have seen that out of those few a good number are usually in the pockets of the fossil fuel companies. > **[7 Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/7-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/)** > > Evidence for human interference with Earth’s climate continues to accumulate > [@](#): > > In 2004 historian of science Naomi Oreskes published a well-known analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” Out of 928 papers whose abstracts she surveyed, she wrote, 75 percent explicitly or implicitly supported anthropogenic global warming, 25 percent were methodological or otherwise took no position on the subject—and none argued for purely natural explanations. Notwithstanding some attempts to debunk Oreskes’ findings that eventually fell apart, her conclusion stands. > > Oreskes’ work does not mean that all climate scientists agree about climate change–obviously, some do not (though they are very much a minority). Rather, the meaningful consensus is not among the scientists but within the science: the overwhelming predominance of evidence for greenhouse-driven global warming that cannot easily be overturned even by a few contrary studies. As for risking the economy, as Citibank reported recently, not dealing with the issue now will hurt the economy more in the future. (yes, that big corporation that must be a commie front [sarcasm]) > **[Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars |...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/31/citi-report-slowing-global-warming-would-save-tens-of-trillions-of-dollars)** > > Dana Nuccitelli: A report from America’s 3rd-largest bank asks why we’re not transitioning to a low-carbon economy > [@](#): > > **Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars** > > A report from America’s 3rd-largest bank asks why we’re not transitioning to a low-carbon economy > [@mikecurtis](#): > > Do you really believe Republicans should have turned their backs on their beliefs because of him? Did you really think they would have? If the shoe was on the other foot, would you? > > mc > > mc Well, this scientist, who is a Republican from BYU, decided to not vote for him. And he had his reasons. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=20290302](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=20290302) > [@](#): > > Just because the Party establishment caused this mess by pandering to hyper-ideological nuts, it doesn’t excuse you for being those hyper-ideological nuts. > > A case in point is how the GOP has handled the threat of human-caused climate change since the Tea Party all but took over. Before that time, it was common for Republican lawmakers (like Newt Gingrich and John McCain) to acknowledge that we needed to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Why? Because almost all the scientists who specialize in climate said so. They still do. And yet, for the past several years, it has been taboo for Republican candidates to express any desire to take action on this. > > The reason for this shift is that certain deep-pocketed individuals and corporations who depend on fossil fuel revenues started pouring an enormous amount of money into “think tanks” and “astroturf” political organizations who argued either that mainstream climate scientists were much more divided on the issue than the public had been led to believe, or it was all a big hoax meant to give the Left a chance to “take away our freedom.” They found a willing audience in the Tea Party hordes. > > I know, I know. You are going to tell me that it REALLY IS all a hoax, and there REALLY IS no consensus, etc., etc. There’s a simple way to pop that balloon, however. Over the last several years, I can probably count on one hand the number of ACTUAL climate scientists the Republicans have asked to testify in Congressional hearings about climate change, whereas there has been a constant parade of different climate scientists testifying for the Democrats. In fact, in some of those hearings, the only “expert witness” on climate science the Republicans called was Lord Christopher Monckton, who is not a scientist, claims to have cured AIDS and many other diseases, goes about falsely claiming to be a member of the UK Parliament, regularly threatens to sue or jail those who disagree with him, and much, much more. The man is a loon. A complete crackpot. And yet, at one of the aforementioned Congressional hearings, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) referred to Monckton as “one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts on the skeptic side.” During the hearing Barton also said, “Adapting is a common way for people to adapt to their environment.” I’m just throwing that out there. > > So no, Tea Partiers, you don’t get a pass. You and the fossil fuel interests who pay to stoke the flames of your idiocy are guilty of driving the GOP into a state of anti-intellectualism more blatant than has been seen in many decades. Is it any wonder that a blowhard like Trump can so easily swoop in and co-opt a bunch of Republicans who aren’t as ideologically pure as you, but whom you have successfully convinced to ignore the experts? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/376 "2017-06-20T00:10:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Not even close. I implied that he ought to have, that it would have been better that if he had, I never got anywhere near suggesting it “was unquestionably a treaty and must be treated like one”. You are _completely_ misrepresenting my position. I thought that perhaps a creative re-interpretation of your statement would be forthcoming, and there it is! 😉 I have nothing further to add except that your original post is there for all to read. The words “ought to have” or “should have” are nowhere to be found, although “should have” appears quite prominently in your new re-interpretation. What there is instead is a lecture about the Constitution and the importance of the Senate supermajority prescribed by the Constitution for treaties, and remarking on my apparent inability to see this. Nor was there any mention of the 17,300 international executive agreements signed since WW II with no particular squabbles about them – it was like that sort of thing was never done. It’s clear to me that you regarded the Paris accord as a treaty, and even accused Obama of “short-circuiting” this process. Perhaps others might come to a different conclusion. I don’t. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This sounds an awful lot like an admission that the “strong popular support” is a bit more ephemeral than you were letting on earlier. If it doesn’t change many votes, then it shouldn’t surprise anyone that elected officials in Washington largely ignore it. “Admission”? “Ephemeral”? Is it supposed to be an awesome admission or revelation that Republican voters know as little about the Paris accord as they do about climate change in general, and care even less? If you read the poll numbers, support for the US staying in is overwhelmingly among Democrats with additional support coming from independents and some Republicans, but not enough of the latter for the incumbent Republicans to care. The sad fact is that this is a truly important issue but most voters don’t see it as such, and Republicans don’t see it at all. I don’t know why I’m supposed to be ashamed of this or something, and “let on” otherwise. In the end, I suspect that this will just be another element of lunacy that helps drive rational voters away from Republicans in 2018 and 2020, but as bad and dishonest as this move is, there are far more egregious and extreme things going on in this administration that are dominating the news and the voters’ mindset. Which in itself is kind of scary. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/377 "2017-06-20T00:33:11Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > [https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/175/1319.htm](https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/175/1319.htm) > > There are three basic tests of whether an international agreement may be concluded as an executive agreement. They are: does the President have the authority to conclude the agreement under his constitutional authority? Or his statutory authority? Or in keeping with other existing treaty commitments? > > I have not examined the Paris Accord carefully in these respects, but it seems totally plausible that the Accord is consistent with US commitments under the UNFCCC. Again, I’m not vouching for that argument, but it has been made and on the face of it seems reasonable. > > Contrast this to **HurricaneDitka** ’s theory on foreign relations: if it is important, it ought to be a treaty. In reading through your cite, I think it did a pretty good job of fleshing out the (to borrow your simplistic phrasing) “if it is important, it ought to be a treaty” line of analysis. Here is what it said: > [@](#): > > **721.3 Considerations for Selecting among Constitutionally Authorized Procedures** > > In determining a question as to the procedure which should be followed for any particular international agreement, due consideration is given to the following factors along with those in 11 FAM 721.2: > > a. The extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole; > > b. Whether the agreement is intended to affect State laws; > > c. Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress; > > d. Past U.S. practice as to similar agreements; > > e. The preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement; > > f. The degree of formality desired for an agreement; > > g. The proposed duration of the agreement, the need for prompt conclusion of an agreement, and the desirability of concluding a routine or short-term agreement; and > > h. The general international practice as to similar agreements. > > In determining whether any international agreement should be brought into force as a treaty or as an international agreement other than a treaty, the utmost care is to be exercised to avoid any invasion or compromise of the constitutional powers of the Senate, the Congress as a whole, or the President. How would you rate each of those items (a-h) on whether they’d tend to suggest a treaty would be the better solution, or an executive agreement, with respect to the Paris Accord? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/378 "2017-06-20T00:44:01Z")
I have been as clear as possible that I haven’t done a detailed reading of the matter and that the argument that this non-binding set of commitments under the accord seem to be consistent with the UNFCCC. If you want to make a detailed analysis on those various points, knock yourself out. I look forward to reading it. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/379 "2017-06-20T04:32:18Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Learning to compromise can be tough. It requires people who are willing to commit to an effort to reach a compromise. Not everyone can make that effort. There’s a disturbing irony here. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/380 "2017-06-20T04:40:00Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > Do you really believe Republicans should have turned their backs on their beliefs because of him? Did you really think they would have? If the shoe was on the other foot, would you? Yes, because the Republicans put as their candidate somebody really bad for your country. Sometimes you have to vote for the good of the country. In the last election here in Canada a lot of my NDP supporting friends voted for Trudeau even though they don’t agree with him in order to oust Harper. If you don’t think you’re country is worth it to vote against Trump, well, I’m not sure what to tell you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112.md?page=20)