Rand Paul Goes Head-to-Head with Jake Tapper on 'Climate Change'

[AuH20]

Rand is a tough cookie.

[Schifference]

Thanks for posting!

[dannno]

2:57

Whoa, whoa, whoa.... wait, rewind and play that again..

Is it fair that Russia gets to increase their carbon output by 50% [while the US has to cut theirs by 20% and China doesn't have to make any cuts at all]?

So a President who is according to Jake Tapper a Russian stooge, declines to sign this agreement which would have made Russia enormously more competitive in the energy markets?

Can I get a deep statesplanation from one of you deep staters?

[juleswin]

Good on Rand for taking some skeptical approach but I am a little concerned with his other argument. Is he saying that if the agreement to cut carbon was fairer, then the agreement would have been OK? so does this mean that when Trump makes a better cut carbon deal with the world, that he would support it?

I am saying this because Trump has hinted on trying to negotiate a better climate change deal. This is what concerns me

[randbot16]

Good on Rand for taking some skeptical approach but I am a little concerned with his other argument. Is he saying that if the agreement to cut carbon was fairer, then the agreement would have been OK? so does this mean that when Trump makes a better cut carbon deal with the world, that he would support it?

I am saying this because Trump has hinted on trying to negotiate a better climate change deal. This is what concerns me

I think it was in his best interest to point out what was glaringly wrong with the deal and applaud it being blocked, echoing that it was unfair and bad for American jobs. I don't think that means he would support a "better" deal unless the deal were in line with his principles. It is not likely there will ever be a "climate deal" that Rand supports, just like there is unlikely to be an "Obamacare repeal deal" that he supports. Attacking the issues with provisions in the deal was the best way to inform the audience, which as Rand pointed out, CNN has no interest in doing.

It was a fantastic interview, you just have to remember that though most of what Rand says is common sense to liberty-minded people, to so much of CNN's audience, it is not. His target audience was those people. It was a brave interview to give, because one of the MSMs favorite things to do is to paint people who bat a defiant eye lash at the climate change propaganda as anti-science loons. Jake definitely tried to steer him into the cross hairs, but couldn't get him there. He touched the issues while remaining very untouchable for a smear campaign... That won't stop his comments from being taken out of context and mischaracterized though.

[CPUd]

I think it was in his best interest to point out what was glaringly wrong with the deal and applaud it being blocked, echoing that it was unfair and bad for American jobs. I don't think that means he would support a "better" deal unless the deal were in line with his principles. It is not likely there will ever be a "climate deal" that Rand supports, just like there is unlikely to be an "Obamacare repeal deal" that he supports. Attacking the issues with provisions in the deal was the best way to inform the audience, which as Rand pointed out, CNN has no interest in doing.

It was a fantastic interview, you just have to remember that though most of what Rand says is common sense to liberty-minded people, to so much of CNN's audience, it is not. His target audience was those people. It was a brave interview to give, because one of the MSMs favorite things to do is to paint people who bat a defiant eye lash at the climate change propaganda as anti-science loons. Jake definitely tried to steer him into the cross hairs, but couldn't get him there. He touched the issues while remaining very untouchable for a smear campaign... That won't stop his comments from being taken out of context and mischaracterized though.

Rand would support a Obamacare repeal deal if it actually repealed Obamacare.

[euphemia]

I grew up in the Los Angeles basin and I remember how bad the air was. A very thick fog in the morning would mean we didn't play outside that afternoon. Once the fog burned off the remainder would be this yellow sludge that made our lungs and throats hurt.

Real pollution should be addressed locally. It is good for people to have clean water and adequate sanitation. It is good for the petroleium and auto industries to find cleaner, more efficient ways for cars to use fuel. It is good to control disposal of trash. Fake science should not be a way to oppress people around the world.