You see, that's a classic example of that. No matter what information I provide you now - you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change.
Okay, but that's basic table stakes for any discussion in which you want to change entrenched parties' minds.
In the meantime, you didn't bother to actually provide anything outlining his reasoning. Which is fine, because having listened to his speech announcing the decision, I can state that virtually none of his stated reasons appear to have any sort of relationship with reality. Which is seemingly par for the course for his administration — is it any wonder people are so skeptical of virtually anything he says?
For starters, he argues that it allows China and India to build coal plants, while allowing the US to build none. Besides the agreement not even having the word coal in it, the entire thing allows countries to come up with their own standards, that they self-enforce. If the US decided our standard was "a coal plant in every home", it wouldn't actually violate any term of the agreement.
you are already looking at it with negativity and it will be near impossible to change.
Well, same can be said of you: I actually wanted to see reasoning and am willing to change my mind on the subject (well, actually not even change, as i don't have a single fixed stance on it because I know I lack the insight), but you're not providing information, instead responding with more negativity :]
I was not talking about this particular climate change action that he did, I was trying to say "in general" it's hard to change person's mind when he is already negatively looking at the subject.
