Well, he renamed it and made minor changes around the edges so he could claim that it was broken and he fixed it. And then, of course, proceeded to violate the agreement he signed.

Excellent post, just a couple of comments.

First, it's interesting that Nikkos said "a previous administration", without naming it. It was, of course, Trump 1.0.

Second, international treaties on refugees don't require a country to accept every refugee and there are multiple examples where nations have made agreements that modify which county must handle asylum claims. For example, the US-Canada Safe Third Country agreement specifies that asylum seekers must make their asylum claim in whichever country they arrive in first. If the US and Mexico had a similar agreement, then refugees could not enter from Mexico at all. Trump tried to get Mexico to sign a Safe Third Country agreement, but Mexico refused -- and it probably would have been invalid anyway, since Mexico might not satisfy the requirements of a "safe" country under the US law that authorizes the signing of Safe Third Country agreements.

Instead, Trump signed the "Migrant Protection Protocols" agreement with Mexico, which was the "remain in place" agreement. You said that no other country should be willing to put up with it, but Mexico did formally agree to it, though only to avoid tariffs. Of course, Mexico has declined to renew the protocols in Trump 2.0 (though Trump announced they had, which Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum immediately denied -- Trump's habit of unilaterally announcing that an agreement has been reached obviously doesn't really work).

Anyway, there are lots of reasons why countries might agree to various limitations on asylum processes to manage refugee volumes, and these agreements are often perfectly valid under international and national law. Trump, of course, doesn't care about legality, or humanity, only what he can get away with.

Better than bathing in blood, I guess.

Release it early, test in prod, patch at leisure.

FBI Crime Stats - Trending down since the '90s.

https://www.brennancenter.org/...

Don't confuse 24/7 reporting with actual crime.

Staring George Clooney and Tom Hanks?

With a president who solves an existential threat by finding the best expert he can find, and using his own formidable political skills and charisma to run interference for that expert.

Seriously, Comacho was a meathead, but Iâ(TM)d vote for him.

So, you have access to all the same information the CBO has access to? There is stuff that should be public, but the actual work computers where people who put the data together shouldn't be open to the public due to potentially sensitive information that shouldn't be available to the public for privacy reasons.

Ah, INT vs WIS.

That's based on an assumption that as their electricity consumption increases, so will their per-capita emissions. They won't, they are falling and will continue to do so. The momentum of the reduction is higher than that of the increase in output.

China's per-capita emissions have peaked, as have their overall emissions. Their population will continue to make gains in quality of life and move to urban living, but their emissions (both metrics) won't ever exceed the peak seen earlier this year.

Which country is unwilling to do anything about climate change in this discussion?

I mean from a point of view of addressing the problem and figuring out who needs to do better.

Comparing US and China on a total emissions basis makes no sense, unless you are saying that China's brutal one child policy wasn't brutal enough.

Many Chinese citizens enjoy a very modern lifestyle, similar to Western ones. Their emissions have peaked too, and as the rest of them move away from the agrarian lifestyle they are not going to reach the peak level, let alone US ones.

What is the point of looking at total emissions if you are unwilling to do anything to address them specifically?

Per-capital is the only thing that matters, and in China it matters a great deal because they are proving that they can develop into a modern, industrial economy, with a high standard of living, without having to replicate developed nation's high emissions. In fact, the way they are doing it is giving them huge advantages like abundant cheap energy.

Welcome to Slashdot. Anything that suggests China may not be the biggest bad doesn't tend to fare very well.