2016 Presidential Horse Race

[drayer54]

Much different tone from Trump tonight.

after tuesday, there will be two.

I disagree. Kasich wins Ohio. Rubio wins Florida. The madness continues.

 

[pkt77242]

I don't think he disregarded it. He said the laws being proposed won't have a positive impact on the environment but would have a negative impact on the economy. I don't know if that's true or not but he didn't disregard climate change. He said we can't make laws that change the weather, which is true. We can make laws that change the way we affect the climate by our actions as human beings but those laws will have a negative impact on the economy so they might not be worth it.

While I get what you are saying from a risk standpoint that seems to be not very well thought out. Lets say there is a 90% chance that global warming is man-made and within a 100 years we will see drastic changes in the world. Even if it does have a short term negative impact on the economy, isn't it worth the risk? Yes we will lose jobs in certain sectors and some companies will shed jobs to offset the increased costs of regulation but it will also grow different areas of the economy (though there will be a lag which is why there will be a short term negative impact) in the future.

I personally think that there are 2 major roadblocks to doing something.
1. No politician wants to be on the hook for hurting the short term in the economy. Too many of our politicians play the short game instead of thinking about long term consequences. Most politicians are worried about getting re-elected in a few years not what will happen to the world in the next 50-100 years.

2. Too many powerful companies are benefiting from the status quo and so they don't want to see it change. Since they heavily fund our candidates it only incentivizes politicians to do nothing.

 

[FearTheBeard]

While I get what you are saying from a risk standpoint that seems to be not very well thought out. Lets say there is a 90% chance that global warming is man-made and within a 100 years we will see drastic changes in the world. Even if it does have a short term negative impact on the economy, isn't it worth the risk? Yes we will lose jobs in certain sectors and some companies will shed jobs to offset the increased costs of regulation but it will also grow different areas of the economy (though there will be a lag which is why there will be a short term negative impact) in the future.

I personally think that there are 2 major roadblocks to doing something.
1. No politician wants to be on the hook for hurting the short term in the economy. Too many of our politicians play the short game instead of thinking about long term consequences. Most politicians are worried about getting re-elected in a few years not what will happen to the world in the next 50-100 years.

2. Too many powerful companies are benefiting from the status quo and so they don't want to see it change. Since they heavily fund our candidates it only incentivizes politicians to do nothing.

Right on, we can do things to correct it but nobody has the balls to stand up for it. Theyre scared of losing their millions from campaign funders. The us economy wont mean shit when oceans are rising and flooding cities and when we're running out of fossil fuels to burn and clean water to drink. But since thats not something thats immediately impacting us today we'll brush it off and let younger generations deal with it.

 

[BGIF]

I don't think he disregarded it. He said the laws being proposed won't have a positive impact on the environment but would have a negative impact on the economy. I don't know if that's true or not but he didn't disregard climate change. He said we can't make laws that change the weather, which is true. We can make laws that change the way we affect the climate by our actions as human beings but those laws will have a negative impact on the economy so they might not be worth it.

^

He specifically noted that the laws proposed won't have a positive impact because of China and India's non-compliance.

He could have added that in his state, FP&L has reduced its coal consumption to 6%.

 

[irishfan]

I disagree. Kasich wins Ohio. Rubio wins Florida. The madness continues.

I bet Trump takes Florida. It's been one of his best states all along, and this whole debate was so subdued I don't think anyone did much to move up or down.

Kasich should win Ohio, but I think any party affiliation can vote, so there's a chance the blue-collar Dems go Trump.

Thinking Trump, Cruz, Kasich going forward and an eventual Trump/Kasich ticket emerging by the end IMO barring Trump going crazy and attacking Kasich if he emerges as a real threat. Trump referenced talking with Paul Ryan the other day. There was clearly an agreement with everyone to tone down the attacks tonight. I think the RNC is prepping to play ball with Trump. He is laughably bad with specifics, but a lot of his general ideas are fine enough that I think they know they can work with him in a general election.

 

[gkIrish]

Rubio appealing to Kasich and Cruz supporters in Florida in the post-debate interview. He mentioned that a vote for Cruz or Kasich in Florida is essentially a vote for Trump and that's 100% true.

 

[BGIF]

Trump or Rubio in FL.

Kasich or Trump in OH.


Where does Cruz win?

Nowhere. He's 3rd in most of the 3/15 Polls. In North Carolina he's in 2nd, 6 points behind Trump.

Mar 15	Florida	246	99  WTA	Closed	
Mar 15	Illinois	182	69 (P)	Open	
Mar 15	Missouri	84	52 WTA 	Open	
Mar 15	North Carolina	121	72 (P)	Mixed	
Mar 15	Northern Mariana Islands Caucus (R)  9 WTA	Closed	
Mar 15	Ohio	159	66   WTA

 

[IrishLax]

Florida is winner take all? If Rubio wins Florida and Kasich wins Ohio then Rubio is going to be within like 50 delegates of Trump.

My general thoughts...
1. Rubio was impressive in every aspect. Doubt it's enough to catch Trump though... the registered Republicans in Florida are overwhelmingly white and old and they'll vote Trump. Rubio would be much better suited in an open primary.
2. Kasich still seems like the same reasonable, competent choice. No change.
3. Cruz still freaks me out a little but he's rather eloquent in his points.
4. Trump was embarrassingly bad and it probably doesn't matter.

 

[gkIrish]

Florida is winner take all? If Rubio wins Florida and Kasich wins Ohio then Rubio is going to be within like 50 delegates of Trump.

My general thoughts...
1. Rubio was impressive in every aspect. Doubt it's enough to catch Trump though... the registered Republicans in Florida are overwhelmingly white and old and they'll vote Trump. Rubio would be much better suited in an open primary.
2. Kasich still seems like the same reasonable, competent choice. No change.
3. Cruz still freaks me out a little but he's rather eloquent in his points.
4. Trump was embarrassingly bad and it probably doesn't matter.

I agree with all of this although I would clarify that while Trump was embarrassingly bad on substance (he literally didn't say anything) he was not embarrassingly bad in terms of tone or looking presidential like he has been in previous debates.

I think Rubio would destroy Hillary in a general election. I think the other two lose. Floridians really need to step up and do what's right for the good of the country.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think Rubio would destroy Hillary in a general election.

I doubt it. The Dems just have a commanding lead in the general election layout.

If the swing states are Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida these days, it's tough to see a GOP win. The Dems would almost certaibly retain Nevada (marijuana on the ballot) and Colorado, and the GOP North Carolina.

Iowa has only gone Red once in 20 years, so that's an uphill battle for Republicans.

That would put the Dems at 268, they could lose Ohio, Florida, and Virginia and still won by just keeping New Hampshire.

And that's before the southern Clinton reach is factored in, do they take Arkansas?

 

[BGIF]

Friday, March 11
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Florida Republican Presidential Primary Florida Times-Union Trump 43, Rubio 24, Cruz 21, Kasich 10 Trump +19
Florida Republican Presidential Primary Trafalgar Group (R) Trump 42, Rubio 23, Cruz 21, Kasich 11 Trump +19


Thursday, March 10
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Florida Republican Presidential Primary Suffolk University Trump 36, Rubio 27, Cruz 19, Kasich 10 Trump +9
Florida Republican Presidential Primary FOX News Trump 43, Rubio 20, Cruz 16, Kasich 10 Trump +23
Florida Republican Presidential Primary Wash Post/Univision Trump 38, Rubio 31, Cruz 19, Kasich 4 Trump +7

Ohio Republican Presidential Primary FOX News Trump 29, Kasich 34, Cruz 19, Rubio 7 Kasich +5
North Carolina Republican Presidential Primary Civitas (R) Trump 32, Cruz 26, Rubio 11, Kasich 11 Trump +6


Wednesday, March 9
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Florida Republican Presidential Primary CNN/ORC Trump 40, Rubio 24, Cruz 19, Kasich 5 Trump +16
Florida Republican Presidential Primary UNF Trump 36, Rubio 24, Cruz 16, Kasich 9 Trump +12
Florida Republican Presidential Primary Quinnipiac Trump 45, Rubio 22, Cruz 18, Kasich 8 Trump +23

North Carolina Republican Presidential Primary WRAL-TV/SurveyUSA Trump 41, Cruz 27, Rubio 14, Kasich 11 Trump +14

Ohio Republican Presidential Primary CNN/ORC Trump 41, Kasich 35, Cruz 15, Rubio 7 Trump +6
Ohio Republican Presidential Primary Quinnipiac Trump 38, Kasich 32, Cruz 16, Rubio 9 Trump +6

Pennsylvania Republican Presidential Primary Harper (R) Trump 36, Rubio 19, Cruz 17, Kasich 10 Trump +17


Tuesday, March 8
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Florida Republican Presidential Primary News 13/SurveyUSA Trump 42, Rubio 22, Cruz 17, Kasich 10 Trump +20
Illinois Republican Presidential Primary Chicago Tribune Trump 32, Rubio 21, Cruz 22, Kasich 18 Trump +10


Monday, March 7
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Florida Republican Presidential Primary Monmouth Trump 38, Rubio 30, Cruz 17, Kasich 10 Trump +8

Ohio Republican Presidential Primary PPP (D) Trump 38, Kasich 35, Cruz 15, Rubio 5 Trump +3

 

[Legacy]

Rubio on climate change said:
1. The climate change may just be cyclical and
2. If we made changes to decrease pollution, that would not lessen global warming because China's and India's pollution would continue

So, it's cyclical with man-made components that worsen it -and we shouldn't enter into any international treaties with the largest poĺluting countries?

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Rubio on climate change said:
1. The climate change may just be cyclical and
2. If we made changes to decrease pollution, that would not lessen global warming because China's and India's pollution would continue

So, it's cyclical with man-made components that worsen it -and we shouldn't enter into any international treaties with the largest poĺluting countries?

"Well, if they're not going to do it, why should we!?"

That's the American way.

 

[NDPhilly]

Florida is winner take all? If Rubio wins Florida and Kasich wins Ohio then Rubio is going to be within like 50 delegates of Trump.

My general thoughts...
1. Rubio was impressive in every aspect. Doubt it's enough to catch Trump though... the registered Republicans in Florida are overwhelmingly white and old and they'll vote Trump. Rubio would be much better suited in an open primary.
2. Kasich still seems like the same reasonable, competent choice. No change.
3. Cruz still freaks me out a little but he's rather eloquent in his points.
4. Trump was embarrassingly bad and it probably doesn't matter.

This is the order i'd vote for the Republican candidates too. Sucks that Rubio and Kasich have virtually no chance.


Fordham ran a university wide poll for the election. Here's the results:
29% Sanders
28% Rubio
21% Clinton
13% Trump
3% Cruz
6% Undecided

The poll didnt include Kasich for whatever reason. Fordham is fairly conservative as far as colleges go being a private catholic school like ND, probably slightly more liberal if anything. Most of my friends like myself favor Rubio. He's conservative enough without going to Cruz levels. Also think he would do great in the general election.

 

[gkIrish]

I doubt it. The Dems just have a commanding lead in the general election layout.

If the swing states are Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida these days, it's tough to see a GOP win. The Dems would almost certaibly retain Nevada (marijuana on the ballot) and Colorado, and the GOP North Carolina.

Iowa has only gone Red once in 20 years, so that's an uphill battle for Republicans.

That would put the Dems at 268, they could lose Ohio, Florida, and Virginia and still won by just keeping New Hampshire.

And that's before the southern Clinton reach is factored in, do they take Arkansas?

I think you are underestimating how much people dislike Hillary. There are many people (I'm one of them) that would vote for any other candidate minus Trump over her.

 

[Cackalacky]

Rubio on climate change said:
1. The climate change may just be cyclical and
2. If we made changes to decrease pollution, that would not lessen global warming because China's and India's pollution would continue

So, it's cyclical with man-made components that worsen it -and we shouldn't enter into any international treaties with the largest poĺluting countries?

I find these canards expressed by Rubio to be ridiculous and exceptionally exemplary of the political right's outright hostility to possibly the biggest GLOBAL human crisis other than overpopulation/unsustainable resource use. What a totally non-conservative position to take for such a "principled" conservative candidate.

I mean environmentalism is, by its nature, a truly conservative position. This should be a home run topic for conservatives, morally at least. However its big business affiliates have made it their own negative platform and will fight against it tooth and nail as Rubio is clearly going to the mat.

Anyway if anyone wants to read this, Jonathan H Alder presents the conservative case for environmentalism in this paper form 2013. Great read. I highly recommend it. Maybe it will make its way to Rubio's hands so he cans stop dispensing such vulgarities.

Conservative Principles for Environmental Reform by Jonathan H. Adler :: SSRN

Keywords in the article:

property rights, free market environmentalism, environmental policy, environmental reform, environmental federalism, decentralization, conservatism, environmental law

 

[wizards8507]

Rubio on climate change said:
1. The climate change may just be cyclical and
2. If we made changes to decrease pollution, that would not lessen global warming because China's and India's pollution would continue

So, it's cyclical with man-made components that worsen it -and we shouldn't enter into any international treaties with the largest poĺluting countries?

That's not what he said. He said that China and India won't enter into those treaties even if we wanted them to, and if we act unilaterally it won't make a hill of beans difference for that reason.

 

[Cackalacky]

That's not what he said. He said that China and India won't enter into those treaties even if we wanted them to, and if we act unilaterally it won't make a hill of beans difference for that reason.

"America is not a planet, it is a country".
OMFG

 

[IrishLax]

Anyone harping on Rubio's climate change answer doesn't understand climate change.

What he (effectively) said was "I'm not going to pass laws that hurt American companies if these other large polluters aren't going to be held to the same standard." If you find fault with that, then the joke is on you.

I have first hand lived (for a couple months) in an abandoned mining town in Arizona where they closed down because regulations made them unprofitable... they move a couple miles across the border and you can literally see the new mine polluting the same air/location without any of the restrictions now. This is what happens when you over-regulate "to save the environment"... it pushes the work to countries without those regulations. American corporations could completely stop work and stop producing any carbon emissions and the result would be that the global market (i.e. China and India) would pick up that slack and produce even more pollution.

China's pollution right now is so bad that it affects it's neighbors (Japan, etc.) significantly and even impacts the west coast of the United States.

 

[woolybug25]

Anyone harping on Rubio's climate change answer doesn't understand climate change.

What he (effectively) said was "I'm not going to pass laws that hurt American companies if these other large polluters aren't going to be held to the same standard." If you find fault with that, then the joke is on you.

I have first hand lived (for a couple months) in an abandoned mining town in Arizona where they closed down because regulations made them unprofitable... they move a couple miles across the border and you can literally see the new mine polluting the same air/location without any of the restrictions now. This is what happens when you over-regulate "to save the environment"... it pushes the work to countries without those regulations. American corporations could completely stop work and stop producing any carbon emissions and the result would be that the global market (i.e. China and India) would pick up that slack and produce even more pollution.

China's pollution right now is so bad that it affects it's neighbors (Japan, etc.) significantly and even impacts the west coast of the United States.

So what's the answer? Because simply doing nothing isn't a good plan for curbing, what I believe, to be the biggest issue facing the world in near future.

We have seen a lot of the adage of "well... they do it" as reasoning for political stances this year.

 

[tussin]

I'm personally a strong environmentalist, understand the realities of the problem, and disappointed to hear the climate change truthers in the GOP. That being said, America can't handicap itself in the global marketplace if no one else is willing to do the same.

As it stands now, I think the best way to address climate change is through consumer and corporate tax breaks that encourage innovation and investment in alternative energy.

 

[woolybug25]

I know we already talked about this, but did anyone actually watch the video from CNN on this?

Donald Trump rally attendee charged with assault - CNNPolitics.com

A few things:

- It's shocking that the protester was arrested on the spot, but the man that punched him remained at the rally.
- I was unaware that the man also said "The next time we see him, we might have to kill him." That's ridiculous.
- It's appalling that Trump has chosen to have no comment on this man.

 

[Cackalacky]

Anyone harping on Rubio's climate change answer doesn't understand climate change.

What he (effectively) said was "I'm not going to pass laws that hurt American companies if these other large polluters aren't going to be held to the same standard." If you find fault with that, then the joke is on you.

I have first hand lived (for a couple months) in an abandoned mining town in Arizona where they closed down because regulations made them unprofitable... they move a couple miles across the border and you can literally see the new mine polluting the same air/location without any of the restrictions now. This is what happens when you over-regulate "to save the environment"... it pushes the work to countries without those regulations. American corporations could completely stop work and stop producing any carbon emissions and the result would be that the global market (i.e. China and India) would pick up that slack and produce even more pollution.

China's pollution right now is so bad that it affects it's neighbors (Japan, etc.) significantly and even impacts the west coast of the United States.

But Lax... This is terribly weak POV to adopt. Pro business policies regarding environmental degradation are amoral at minimum and immoral at worst. There will be no business occurring if the resources are used up, water quality destroyed, air made unbreathable etc. We are well on that path already but China is doubling all efforts to transition into renewables And clean up its pollution. This mindset is soooo dangerous. All we do affects every thing else. You are right. China's pollution is making its way here. Japan's nuclear fallout made it to the West Coast.

You claim over regulation doomed that Arizona town. Regulations would be unnecessary if companies did things that did not pollute or were net neutral in the damage. That is the real problem. Not regulation. Regulations are a result of terrible policies and business practices and public health crisises. We as humans have terribly misguided priorities if we cannot grasp the fact our actions have major implications GLOBALLY and they do not stay within the confines of our imaginary property boundaries.

Rubio basically threw every standard canard about climate change he could in that one exchange. He mentioned supporting mitigation but does not feel the need to stop the root causes. This is a horribly flawed POV. It actually needs to be criticized.

And I feel I understand climate change very well both politically and economically. What Rubio said amounts to nothing more than "they do it so must we". Methinks it is actually Rubio who does not understand climate change at all and people criticizing him for his statements understand it more than he does.

 

[IrishLax]

So what's the answer? Because simply doing nothing isn't a good plan for curbing, what I believe, to be the biggest issue facing the world in near future.

We have seen a lot of the adage of "well... they do it" as reasoning for political stances this year.

The answer is getting all western countries (i.e. the "consumers") to band together and strong arm those countries into passing pollution/emissions standards. This is something Obama's administration has already (in some ways) tried to do in terms of global CO2 standards. The problem is that there was no "stick" to get these countries to really cut back and conform, and everyone was OK with letting "emerging" economies continue to pollute to their heart's content. I'm drastically over-simplifying, but this is in essence what is going on.

So the answer seems to be enacting scaling tariffs or other sanctions that make it cost-prohibitive for these countries to behave how they currently do. I'm not an economist that can tell you the exact numbers for these penalties, but you have to say "if you're not going to adhere to (Insert Global Standard) then we (Western Countries) aren't buying your stuff anymore."

China should not be allowed to have cities that look like this:

While we enacted more stringent laws that push our corporations to close down their plants here and manufacture over there where they can then pollute to their heart's content in the name of profitability.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm personally a strong environmentalist, understand the realities of the problem, and disappointed to hear the climate change truthers in the GOP. That being said, America can't handicap itself in the global marketplace if no one else is willing to do the same.

As it stands now, I think the best way to address climate change is through consumer and corporate tax breaks that encourage innovation and investment in alternative energy.

Explain to me your moral stance on the bolded. Why is doing the right thing wrong from a business sense.

 

[tussin]

But Lax... This is terribly weak POV to adopt. Pro business policies regarding environmental degradation are amoral at minimum and immoral at worst. There will be no business occurring if the resources are used up, water quality destroyed, air made unbreathable etc. We are well on that path already but China is doubling all efforts to transition into renewables And clean up its pollution. This mindset is soooo dangerous. All we do affects every thing else. You are right. China's pollution is making its way here. Japan's nuclear fallout made it to the West Coast.

You claim over regulation doomed that Arizona town. Regulations would be unnecessary if companies did things that did not pollute or were net neutral in the damage. That is the real problem. Not regulation. Regulations are a result of terrible policies and business practices and public health crisises. We as humans have terribly misguided priorities if we cannot grasp the fact our actions have major implications GLOBALLY and they do not stay within the confines of our imaginary property boundaries.

Rubio basically threw every standard canard about climate change he could in that one exchange. He mentioned supporting mitigation but does not feel the need to stop the root causes. This is a horribly flawed POV. It actually needs to be criticized.

And I feel I understand climate change very well both politically and economically. What Rubio said amounts to nothing more than "they do it so must we". Methinks it is actually Rubio who does not understand climate change at all and people criticizing him for his statements understand it more than he does.

First of all, I think it's silly to describe current regulations as "immoral." If the Dems were so concerned with the "morality" of their policies then their stances would be different on a variety of topics oft debated on this board.

I think Rubio understands the situation very well, you just have a fundamental disagreement on the role of government in fixing the situation. I don't think it's desirable, or appropriate, for the federal government to push anti-business regulations to address an issue at the expense of jobs and economic growth. IMO, what is desirable is for the federal government to create pro-business regulations that nudge consumers and companies to make environmentally sound decisions.

 

[Cackalacky]

First of all, I think it's silly to describe current regulations as "immoral." If the Dems were so concerned with the "morality" of their policies then their stances would be different on a variety of topics oft debated on this board.

I think Rubio understands the situation very well, you just have a fundamental disagreement on the role of government in fixing the situation. I don't think it's desirable, or appropriate, for the federal government to push anti-business regulations to address an issue at the expense of jobs and economic growth. IMO, what is desirable is for the federal government to create pro-business regulations that nudge consumers and companies to make environmentally sound decisions.

I am not asking as point counterpointfor Reps and Dems. This is a hymn issue. It is a moral issue. By its very nature. Pollution harms humans degrades our only known home in the universe. It should be protected at all costs. Not left up to the whims of amoral businesses fighting over imaginary borders and currencies.

 

[IrishLax]

But Lax... This is terribly weak POV to adopt. Pro business policies regarding environmental degradation are amoral at minimum and immoral at worst. There will be no business occurring if the resources are used up, water quality destroyed, air made unbreathable etc. We are well on that path already but China is doubling all efforts to transition into renewables And clean up its pollution. This mindset is soooo dangerous. All we do affects every thing else. You are right. China's pollution is making its way here. Japan's nuclear fallout made it to the West Coast.

You claim over regulation doomed that Arizona town. Regulations would be unnecessary if companies did things that did not pollute or were net neutral in the damage. That is the real problem. Not regulation. Regulations are a result of terrible policies and business practices and public health crisises. We as humans have terribly misguided priorities if we cannot grasp the fact our actions have major implications GLOBALLY and they do not stay within the confines of our imaginary property boundaries.

Rubio basically threw every standard canard about climate change he could in that one exchange. He mentioned supporting mitigation but does not feel the need to stop the root causes. This is a horribly flawed POV. It actually needs to be criticized.

And I feel I understand climate change very well both politically and economically. What Rubio said amounts to nothing more than "they do it so must we". Methinks it is actually Rubio who does not understand climate change at all and people criticizing him for his statements understand it more than he does.

The bolded is logically contradictory.

You say regulation isn't the problem, yet my example shows regulation causing more pollution by causing the business to uproot and move to Mexico where they don't have the same regulations.

You're a civil engineer, so you took some enviro classes in college. Accordingly, you know that there are an abundance of chemical manufacturing plants in Mexico because they have lesser regulations and can pollute more while paying less.

So, in essence, if we consider the world as a single entity, enacting really tough regulations in the United States => businesses move to places where they don't have the regulation => they pollute more there than they did before in the United States. So in the end, the net result in global pollution is actually worse by enacting stronger regulation in the United States. And that's not even considering the carbon footprint associated with transportation of those goods.

When Rubio says "America is a country, not a planet" he's 100% right... the only way something effective gets done on climate change is if a coalition of the "consumers" puts says they aren't playing ball anymore with global polluters.

 

[tussin]

Explain to me your moral stance on the bolded. Why is doing the right thing wrong from a business sense.

Global warming is a problem, but it's not an issue of morality. Smoking is bad for you, but it doesn't make you a bad person.

Instead of enacting fossil fuel regulations that will directly kill jobs and hurt families, let's figure out ways to make people shift to nuclear, wind, solar, etc. Basically the right thing is to encourage innovation and fix the root of the problem. Putting a band-aid on a bullet hole isn't going to solve anything.

The only way this stops being a problem is when it makes more economic sense for companies to invest in clean energy. That's it. As Lax has been saying, if the US enacts tough regulations on fossil fuels, the only result will be companies killing American operations and moving to other areas in the world where they can continue business as usual.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Global warming is a problem, but it's not an issue of morality. Smoking is bad for you, but it doesn't make you a bad person.

That's not logically equivalent. Forcing smoke into other people's lungs would make you a bad person.